WP/28169/2007 of T.Kumar Reddy Vs The Rayachoti Municipality, Rayachoti ,Kadapa District on 28 December 2007

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to quash notice,dated 18.12.2007 issued by the respondent whereby the petitioner isdirected to remove the chicken stall being run by him by the side ofRamalayam.

Heard Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and SriS.I.Newton, learned counsel representing the respondent municipality.

A perusal of the impugned notice shows that the petitioner isrunning a chicken stall in Ward No.23 of Kothapeta Road nearRamalayam and that residents of the said area have submitted writtenrepresentations to remove the said stall, as it is creating unhygienicconditions affecting the health of the residents of the area. Thepetitioner is, therefore, called upon to remove the stall within threedays from the date of receipt of the notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that therespondent by the impugned order, though styled as notice, directedthe petitioner to remove the chicken stall within three days and that thesaid order is not preceded by a notice and an opportunity to thepetitioner.

Sri S.I.Newton, learned Standing Counsel for the respondentfairly admitted that the impugned proceedings are not preceded by anotice.

Since the impugned order results in adverse civil consequences to the petitioner, the same ought not to have been passed by therespondent without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside. Therespondent is directed to issue an action-oriented notice and after hearing the petitioner in person andconsidering his objections, the respondent may pass an order.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

28[th] DECEMBER, 2007

Note: issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs.

B/o

kvni