APHC010187682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 9514/2025 Between: K Hussain Basha ...PETITIONER AND The Allagadda Municipality and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.9514 of 2025 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing the proceedings dated 08.04.2025 cancelling the trade licence of the Petitioner without issuing notice or opportunity is arbitrary and illegal. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was granted trade licence under Section 288 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, on 07.11.2024 vide Roc.No.01929-2024-YJ by the respondent- Municipality. While so, on 10.03.2025, the Officials of Respondent No.2 conducted a raid on the Petitioner-shop and pursuant to the letter addressed by the Assistant Director (AH), Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, Kurnool, vide letter bearing No.Roc.No.17/2025 dated 10.03.2025 to Joint Director (AH), Veterinary Biological and Research Institute, Labbipet, Vijayawada requested for a thorough analysis of the chicken and meat samples that were seized from the shop of the Petitioner. Pursuant to the request, the Assistant Director (AH), Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory conducted required analysis and 3 issued report stating that the tested chicken and meat are unfit for human consumption. On the basis of the said report, a closure notice was issued by the Respondent-Municipality on 22.03.2025 and questioning the same, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.8161 of 2025. As there were certain errors in the order, the respondent- Municipality issued the impugned proceedings on 08.04.2025 vide Procds.Roc.No.47/2025-F1 cancelling the trade licence of the Petitioner for the sake of public health. Questioning the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that as per Section 344 (6) of the Municipalities Act (for short ‘the Act’), a show cause notice should be issued before suspension or revocation of trade licence that is granted to the Petitioner. 4. Learned standing counsel for the Respondent-Municipality submits that as per the trade licence issued to the Petitioner, the licence is deemed to be suspended/cancelled if the respondent- Municipality considers the said action necessary for public health, convenience of safety or any other conditions. Learned standing counsel points out that in view of the specific clause in the trade 4 licence itself, no further hearing is contemplated for passing the impugned order. 5. Having heard the respective counsel, as per the proviso to Section 344(6) of the Act, a show cause notice should be issued before suspension or revocation of trade licence. The clause referred by the learned standing counsel in the trade licence is not referable to any provisions of the Act. Even otherwise, when there are civil consequences leading to scarring of the reputation of the individual, it is but natural to issue a show cause notice and then pass the impugned order. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The impugned order shall be treated as a show cause notice and Respondent-Authority shall issue documents relied upon to Petitioner. (ii) The Petitioner shall submit an explanation to the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of documents. (iii) Thereupon, the Respondent-Authority shall pass appropriate orders. 5 No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 09.04.2025 KLP