1 APHC010012842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 783/2025 Between: 1. YACHAM DHANUSH, C/O. YACHAM SUBRAMANYAM, RESIDING AT D.NO. 20-3-28/A, SIVAJYOTHI NAGAR, TIRUPATI (URBAN) ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 501. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI. 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATHI. 5. VENKATAPATHI NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, VENKATAPATHI NAGAR, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL. 6. P N SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. P.CHANDRA, RESIDING AT D.NO.3-132, VENKATAPATHI NAGAR VILLAGE AND POST TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Venkatesh B Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned Notice bearing Roc.No.B/09/2024 dated 30.12.2024 (Ex.P.7) and would submit that the said Notice does not speak as to under what statute, it has been issued. The Notice only would indicate that on a Complaint given by one Sri P.N. Subramanyam s/o. P. Chandra (Unofficial Respondent No.6 herein), the said Notice has been issued. Learned Counsel submits that the copy of the Complaint has also not been supplied to the Writ Petitioner’s father. Learned Counsel would submit that the Petitioner is kept in dark insofar as the contents of the Complaint of Sri P. N. Subramanyam is concerned and therefore, he is unable to attend the enquiry with full particulars since he does not know the scope of the Complaint. Learned Counsel would submit that the said Complaint is vitiated due to violation of principles of Natural Justice. 3. This Court is in agreement with the submissions made by Sri Venkatesh B Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the impugned Order suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of Natural Justice inasmuch as the material document, which is the Complaint made by the Unofficial Respondent No.6, has not been supplied to the Writ Petitioner. 3 Accordingly, the impugned Notice bearing Roc.No.B/09/2024 dated 30.12.2024 (Ex.P.7) is set-aside. 4. The Respondents are at liberty to issue fresh Notice in the name of the Writ Petitioner, rather in the name of the father of the Writ Petitioner, by supplying a copy of the Complaint and any other material documents that have been filed by the Complainant and grant a reasonable time for the Writ Petitioner to submit his explanation. 5. This Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above observations and directions. No order as to costs. 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 10.01.2025 Vns