Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29719 (AP)

Machigiri Venkateswararao, v. The State Andhra Pradesh,

WP/21650/2025 · 2025-08-13

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010425942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 21650/2025 Between: 1. MACHIGIRI VENKATESWARARAO,, S/O. PANDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO.5-47/2, RAJUPALEM, KOMARAGIRIPATNAM, ALLAVARAM, BENDAMURTAOKA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE KOMARAGIRIPATNAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KOMARAGIRIPATNAM, ALLAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing notice dated 28.07.2025, thereby threatening to evict the petitioner from his shop having Registration Number AP-18-06-013-03546402, near petrol bunk main road Komaragiripatnam village, Allavaram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and 2 Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and Rules framed there under and also offends Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the notice dated 28.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondent No.2 not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the notice dated 28.07.2025 over the shop having Registration Number AP- 18-06-013-03546402, near petrol bunk main road, Komaragiripatnam village, Allavaram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MALLAVELLI NAGA SAI LALITH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 21650/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notice dated 28.07.2025, thereby threatening to evict the petitioner from his shop having Registration Number AP-18-06-013-03546402, near petrol bunk main road, Komaragiripatnam Village, Allavaram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and Rules framed there under and also offends Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the notice dated 28.07.2025 issued by respondent No.2 and pass such other order.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a chicken shop at R & B road margin at the 2nd respondent/Gram Panchayat, since many years. While so, without observing the principles of natural justice as contemplated under Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and without issuing any prior notice, pursuant to the complaint of the third party, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned notice/order dated 28.07.2025 directing the petitioner to evict the subject shop from the 4 road margin within a period of two days on the ground that traffic congestion has been causing. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that since the petitioner carrying business by occupying the road margin, which is causing traffic congestion, the 2nd respondent/Gram Panchayat is entitled to initiate action as per Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. In accordance with the said provision, the 2nd respondent issued impugned notice dated 28.07.2025. 5. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the terms of the impugned notice, this Court opined that the subject impugned notice is in the form of final notice/order directing the petitioner either to remove the shop or to evict from the subject place within a period of forty eight hours and to do business at the daily market area. So as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice is in the form of final notice/order without preceding any show-cause/prior notice as contemplated under Section 98 of Act, 1994 as well as the ratio laid down by this Court is contrary to law, arbitrary and colorable exercise of power, violation of principles of natural justice by the Executive Authority while exercising their executive power under the Act. In view of the settled law and facts, the impugned notice dated 28.07.2025 admittedly is not preceded by any prior show-cause 5 notice, the subject notice can be treated as show-cause notice and the petitioner is directed to submit a detailed explanation and substantiate his claim for the subject property, within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. After such submissions, the 2nd respondent/Gram Panchayat shall consider the said explanation and pass appropriate orders, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other stakeholders if any, in accordance with law, within a period of four(4) weeks thereafter. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner. 6. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 1144..0088..22002255 TTPPSS 6 78 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:21650 of 2025 1144..0088..22002255 TTPPSS