IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 3370 of 2009 Between: The Lorry Owners Association Rep. by its Secretary, V. Rama Krishna Mandapeta, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND Mandapeta Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner Mandapeta, East Godavari 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 writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notice in Ref.No.ROC No. 781/2004-G1, dt.9-2-2009 issued by the respondent directing the petitioner to vacate the premises of an extent of Ac.0.75 cts. in Sy.No.151/1B of Mandapeta, East Godavari Dist. as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice consequently directing the respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the said site. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.3370 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the notice in R.O.C.No.781/2004-G1, dated 09.02.2009, issued by the respondent Municipality, directing the petitioner Association to vacate the site to an extent of Ac.0.75 gts. in Sy.No.151 of Mandapeta, East Godavari District. According to the petitioner Association, since there are many rice mills and industries located in its area i.e., Mandapeta area, the lorries are the main transporting system in that area and, as such, its lorry owners made a request to the respondent authorities to allot some parking place to keep their vehicles separately without causing nuisance or inconvenience to the public. Thereupon, after considering the request of the petitioner’s lorry owners, the respondent has allotted the land to an extent of Ac.0.75 cts. in Sy.No.151 of Mandapeta and passed resolution No.237 on 28.02.1984 to that effect and handed over the possession to the petitioner Association. While that being so, the respondent issued the impugned notice, dated 09.02.2009, directing the petitioner to vacate the said site within 15 days, failing which necessary action will be initiated under Section 37 of the Municipalities Act. Assailing the said notice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice, dated 16.06.2004, referred to in the impugned notice, was not served on the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent fairly conceded that the notice dated 16.06.2004, referred to in the impugned notice, was not served on the petitioner, and submitted that the writ petition be disposed of treating the impugned notice as show cause notice to the petitioner, calling for explanation of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner expressed no objection to this stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. In view of the agreed stand taken by both the counsel, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: “The respondent shall treat the impugned notice as show cause notice. The petitioner is given two weeks’ time to submit its explanation to the impugned notice, treating the same as show cause notice. Upon the petitioner submitting its explanation, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Till such time, there shall be interim stay of the operation of the impugned notice.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J Note: Furnish CC in three days B/o v v