THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17319 OF 2008 Dated: 11.08.2010 Between : M/s. Balaji Mithai Bandar Batty, H.No.1-8-536, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, rep. by its partner Sri Jethmal Nimbavath … Petitioner And 1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad., and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17319 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the house bearing No.1-5-836, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. It is stated that the petitioner has been using the said premises for preparation of sweets which are being sold in his shop situated on the main road, Chikkadapally. It is also stated that the petitioner has obtained a trade licence from the respondent Corporation for the house No.1-5-836 specifically for erection of a Sweet Bhatti for the purpose of preparation of sweets and the licence is being renewed from time to time. While so, show-cause notice dated 4.3.2008 was issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation alleging that the petitioner did not possess trade licence and that apart the premises had no sufficient parking place as required under bye-law No.10 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Bye-laws for Eating Houses and Hotels, 1973. It was also alleged that the petitioner had unauthorizedly converted the permitted usage of the premises and that the kitchen where the food stuffs were being prepared was found to be situated in insanitary conditions and calling upon the petitioner to show-cause within one week as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner for the violation of the statutory provisions. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 19.4.2008 denying the allegations and stating that the petitioner is possessing a valid trade license in respect of the premises in question for the purpose of Sweet bhatti. However, the 2nd respondent without assigning any reasons vide proceedings dated 9.7.2008 directed the petitioner to close the establishment. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is stated that as the petitioner was using diesel for the purpose of its Sweet bhatti, the local residents had given a written complaint alleging that severe pollution was being caused in the locality. Pursuant thereto when the officials of the Corporation inspected the site it was found that the petitioner was running the Sweet bhatti using diesel which was causing pollution. Hence the show-cause notice was issued and as the petitioner’s explanation was not satisfactory, the impugned final order directing closure of the establishment was issued. It was made clear that the impugned notice was issued only to the extent of continuing Sweet bhatti and not for the purpose of trade licence for the business of the petitioner. It is also contended that in spite of providing sufficient opportunity, the petitioner failed to close the bhatti which was causing air pollution in the locality. The residents of the locality who got themselves impleaded to the writ petition as respondent No.4 alleged in their counter-affidavit that as the petitioner has been using diesel operated burners, water, air and noise pollution is being caused in the locality. It is also alleged that the unchecked activity of gambling and drinking by the labourers housed in the premises has been causing lot of inconvenience to the residents of the locality. It is further alleged that the goods vehicles which supply the milk and other items for preparation of sweets have been creating traffic congestion in the entire locality. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been using the premises in question for preparation of sweets. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is possessing a licence granted by the competent authority under Section 521 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and as on today the licence is subsisting. However it appears that the premises in question is situated in a residential locality and the activities of the petitioner are causing lot of inconvenience to the other residents of the locality. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioner has been making the sweets with diesel operated burners which is causing water, air and noise pollution. Though in the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Corporation received several complaints from the locality about the noise and air pollution being caused by the petitioner’s Sweet bhatti in the premises in question, the same was not mentioned in the show- cause notice. Similarly the inspection of the premises in question said to have been conducted by the officials of the Corporation has been denied by the petitioner and even according to the respondents the said inspection was not made in the presence of the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that the impugned order of closure dated 9.7.2008 is mainly based on the alleged air and noise pollution being caused by the petitioner’s Sweet bhatti apart from the nuisance being faced by the residents of the locality. The said allegations were admittedly not put to the petitioner in the show-cause notice and there was no opportunity to the petitioner either to submit his explanation or to rectify the contraventions pointed out. Hence the impugned order of closure on the ground that the petitioner’s activity was causing pollution and creating nuisance is apparently not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is also bad for the absence of any reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar stated that the petitioner is always ready and willing to take all the preventive steps to prevent inconvenience, if any, to the residents of the locality. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of closure dated 9.7.2008 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (1) The respondents 1 to 3 shall cause spot inspection of the premises in question in the presence of both the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (2) In case any violations / contraventions which are likely to cause any kind of inconvenience to the residents of the locality on account of the activities of the petitioner in the premises are found, the respondents 1 to 3 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain such violations / contraventions, if any. (3) Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of inspection of the premises in question. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 11.08.2010 Note:- CC in 3 days. (B/O) gbs