IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 4795 of 2008 Between: Kurru Anand Kumar, S/o. Surya Narayana, Gollaprolu Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Gram Panchayat Gollaprolu, Rep by its Sarpanch, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavarai District. 3 Madepalli Ranga Babu, S/o. Tammaiah, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavarai District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned action of the 2nd respondent in not accepting the requisite fee from grant of panchayat licence to run small scale industry of the petitioner even after completing all the formalities at the instance of the 3rd respondent, without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice etc and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to accept the application along with the requisite fee of Rs.100/- and dispose petitioner's application seeking permission to run his small scale industry i.e. M/s. Sai Srinivasa Traders, Gollaprolu Village and Mandal, East Godavari District in accordance with law and grant Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.V.ANANTHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of the house property bearing D.No.1-264 (old) and 343 (new) in Sy.No.89/8 of Gollaprolu village, East Godavari District, and he proposed to start a small scale industry under the name and style of M/s.Sai Srinivasa Traders. According to him, he obtained the required no objection certificates from the residents of the village. He also obtained no objection from others. When he approached the 2nd respondent Gram Panchayat for issuance of clearance/no objection certificate, the same was refused and hence he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent should not have rejected the said application in limini. It should have received the application along with the required fee and, if it so chooses, pass an order saying that the petitioner is not entitled for the clearance/no objection certificate. The rejection of the application of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent without passing an appropriate order, in my considered view, is unwarranted. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to accept the application of the petitioner along with the required fees and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. 29.4.2008 kpr