Telangana High Court
WP/27156/2010 of V.Upender, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 29 December 2011
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27156 of 2010 Date : 29-12-2011 Between: V. Upender .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Dammalapati Srinivas Counsel
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDYW.P.No.27156 of 2010
Date : 29-12-2011
Between:V. Upender Petitioner
And
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Secretary,Prohibition and Excise Department,Hyderabad and others Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Dammalapati SrinivasCounsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleaderfor Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following:
..
..
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-asideproceeding in Cr.No.B1/704/2010/ESS, dated 23-10-2010,whereby on a complaint given by one N. Ramesh,respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to select analternative premises within the notified ward and shift his A-4shop from the existing premises within 15 days of receipt ofthe said proceeding, on the ground that the A-4 shop beingrun by him is located at a distance of 95.70 and 65.5 meters,respectively, from the second gate of the A.P.S.R.T.C. andthe Suraksha Children Hospitals, at Tarnaka.
Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned counsel for thepetitioner, submitted that the petitioner is running the A-4shop in the premises in dispute since the year 2008 and thatno one has raised any grievance against running the samein the said premises. The learned counsel further submittedthat while the Suraksha Children’s Hospital at Tarnakacame into existence more than two months after the grant oflicence to the petitioner, the distance of 95.70 metersbetween the A.P.S.R.T.C. Hospital at Tarnaka and to thepetitioner’s premises is from the second gate which is meantonly for the residents of the staff quarters to reach theirquarters situated within the hospital premises. The learnedcounsel further submitted that before issuing the impugned proceedings, no prior notice was issued to the petitionerthereby denying him an opportunity of explaining his casewith reference to the actual distances between his A-4shop, the A.P.S.R.T.C. and the Suraksha Children Hospitalsat Tarnaka.
At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader forProhibition and Excise has not disputed that no prior noticewas issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugnedproceeding.
Even though the impugned proceeding is styled as anotice, in reality, it is an order directing the petitioner to shifthis A-4 shop to a different premises. Such a direction oughtnot to have been issued by respondent No.3 unless thepetitioner was put on notice and given an opportunity ofexplaining his case. On this short ground, the impugnedproceeding is set-aside. Liberty is however given torespondent No.3 to issue a fresh notice and takeappropriate decision after giving the petitioner a notice andan opportunity of being heard.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extentindicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP No.34697/2010 and WVMPNo.2349/2011 are disposed of as infructuous.
________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 29-12-2011
AM