IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.1100 of 2002 Between: Kakarla Balaramurthy and seven others. … Petitioners And Secretary, Pamarru Panchayat Secretariat, Pamarru, Krishna District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri L.Ravichander. Counsel for the respondents: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside notice dated 17-1-2002 issued by respondent No.1, wherein he directed removal of the petitioners’ shops situated at Pamarru-Challapalli Road, Pamarru village, Krishna District. Heard Sri L.Ravichandder, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. The petitioners have been carrying on petty businesses of fruits, ﬂowers etc., near vegetable market in Pamarru village, facing Pamarru- Challapalli road, by erecting pucca sheds. The petitioners claim that respondent No.1- Panchayat granted licenses to them by collecting the license fees and tax to carryon the said businesses and allotted door numbers to the shops in their respective occupation. When respondents 2 and 3 attempted to demolish the petitioners’ shops, they ﬁled Writ Petition No.18216 of 2001, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 3-1-2002 with an observation that respondent No.3 shall be free to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioners and follow due process of law for their eviction. This Court further stayed the eviction of the petitioners from the shops in question till the respondents complete the said process. The petitioners averred that in view of the change of the political set up following the Panchayat elections, one Sri B.Seetha Reddy - who is the husband of the newly elected Sarpanch Smt.Kamala Kumari and inimically disposed of towards the petitioners – has been attempting to demolish the petitioners’ shops and dispossess them there-from; and the impugned notice is issued for that purpose. No counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of respondent No.1. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent 3 it is stated that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.18216 of 2001, the Executive Oﬃcer of respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat issued the impugned notices, and respondents 2 and 3, being the Police Authorities, have nothing to do with the said action. A perusal of the contents of the impugned notices betrays the inability of the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat to understand the true purport of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.18216 of 2001. As noted above, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with liberty to the respondents to initiate eviction proceedings in accordance with law. The Panchayat Secretary thoroughly misunderstood the said observation and treated the said order as giving license to him to evict the petitioners, without following due process of law. The above mentioned order of this Court obviously meant that respondent No.1 should call upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the said premises by giving reasons therefor and after receiving the explanations, if any, ﬁled by them, he should pass a reasoned order before taking any action for eviction of the petitioners. As the impugned notices run counter to the order passed by this Court, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notices are quashed. Respondent No.1 is left free to initiate fresh proceedings, if he so desires, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. ------------------------- -------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22-10-2008 MNR