1 APHC010171162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 8994/2025 Between: 1. PRAGADA SRINIVAS, S/O. LAKSHMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO.11-52, LAKKAVARAM VILLAGE, JANGAREDDIGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYATI OFFICER, JANGAREDDIGUDEM DIVISION, JANGAREDDIGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT. 3. THE LAKKAVARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, LAKKAVARAM VILLAGE, JANGAREDDIGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Sri V.Sai Kiran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPS, MPPS and Gram Panchayat. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the ‘Notice’ issued by the Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.3) dated 18.03.2025 (Ex.P1). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that although the impugned proceeding dated 18.03.2025 (Ex.P1) is couched in the nomenclature as a ‘Notice’, it is essentially and in effect, a final order. He would submit that such a final order directing the Writ Petitioner to remove the alleged encroachments, without there being any show cause notice thereby calling for any explanation/response, is a violation of principles of natural justice. 3. This Court perused the proceedings of Respondent No.3 dated 18.03.2025 (Ex.P1). 4. Having perused the same, this Court is in agreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the said proceedings is couched in the nomenclature of a ‘Notice’, but essentially and in effect is a final order. It transpires from the record that a prior show cause notice followed by an explanation from the Writ Petitioner has not been initiated. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the alleged proceedings, which is in the nature of a final order has been passed behind the back of the Writ Petitioner and without giving the Writ Petitioner an opportunity to explain his case/version. 5. In this view of the matter, the impugned ‘Notice’ dated 18.03.2025 is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 3 6. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, if so advised, by following the due process of law. 7. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 08.04.2025 JLV