THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.33583 of 2011 Date: 20.12.2011 Between: S. Gangadhar …. Petitioner And State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.33583 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri T. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Smt. Ch. Vedavani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner has established a small scale unit for operating a woven for manufacturing puffed rice, locally called “Borugulu”. The said unit is situated in Mazid Street of Kothacheruvu Village, Anantapur District, which is a residential area. The petitioner states that he has been operating the said unit by obtaining permission and paying property tax. Since the unit is allegedly causing inconvenience to the public affecting their health, the District Collector, Anantapur District, and the District Panchayat Officer, Anantapur District, respondent Nos.2 and 3, respectively, acting on a news item published in “PRAJAVANI” News Daily, instructed the 4th respondent-Secretary-cum-Special Officer, Kothacheruvu Gram Panchayat, Anantapur District, to take appropriate action for shifting the unit. Pursuant to the said directions, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.82/2011, dated 12.12.2011, directing the petitioner to shift the unit away from the village and submit his explanation. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the sole and substantive ground that he has not been provided an opportunity to offer his explanation. 3. According to the petitioner, manufacturing of puffed rice in woven does not cause any inconvenience nor does it cause pollution. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in directing him to shift the unit. 4. Learned counsel submits that if the respondents had issued a show cause notice, the petitioner would have explained by placing the facts and convinced them that the existence of the unit is not objectionable. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, on a perusal of the impugned notice dated 12.12.2011, it is evident that the petitioner has not been given a notice before directing him to shift the unit. Indisputably, the petitioner has been running the unit after duly obtaining permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been given a notice before directing him to shift the unit. 6. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing that the impugned notice dated 12.12.2011 shall be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from today. On submission of such explanation, the 4th respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till orders are passed by the 4th respondent, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. 8. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41748 of 2011 is dismissed as unnecessary. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 20.12.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. (B/O) Msr THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.33583 of 2011 20.12.2011 (Msr)