IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21309 of 2003 Between: Kanala Guru Murthy S/o. Sri Maddayya R/o. Agraharam, Eluru, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Eluru Municipality, Rep. by Commissioner, Eluru, W.G. District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned notice in Roc. No.G1/3151/2003 dated 24-09-2003 issued by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to law laid down by this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Notice, dated 24-09-2003, issued in Proceedings Roc.No.G1/3151/2003 by the respondent, by which the respondent - Commissioner has ordered for removal of encroachment alleged to have been made by the petitioner over an extent of 9 square yards on the municipal road margin at Block No.10, T.S.No.715, ward No.31 of Agraharam. It is an allegation of the petitioner that he has not encroached any property as alleged and the impugned notice is issued directly for removal of structures on the alleged encroachment, without conducting an enquiry and the impugned notice is not preceded by any show cause notice and enquiry. At the stage of admission, this Court by order, dated 30-09-2003, ordered to maintain status quo. Though the writ petition is pending from 2003, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent and there is also no representation. I have perused a copy of the impugned order. In the impugned order, there is no reference to any show cause notice before issuing the Notice, dated 24-09-2003. It is well settled that before taking any action, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard so as to explain his case. As much as it is pleaded by the petitioner that he has not encroached any road margin as alleged and taking into account that counter-affidavit is not filed by the respondent, I deem it appropriate to set aside the Notice, dated 24-09-2003, issued in Proceedings Roc.No.G1/3151/2003, only on the ground that the said Notice is issued in violation of the principles of the natural justice and the same is issued without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Notice, dated 24-09-2003, issued by the respondent. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner has encroached any road margin and raised any structures, this order will not preclude the respondent to issue show cause notice to him and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 20th July, 2009. skmr