APHC010281482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14215/2025 Between: Nanjundappa ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the issuance of impugned notice dated 09.06.2025 by the 5th respondent directing the petitioner to remove the shop i.e., bunk constructed on the road margin of Gudibanda to Rolla Road at Rolla Village & Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, without following the procedure contemplated under law, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Smt Marella Radha learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for MPP, ZPP & Gram Panchayat and Smt Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of small grocery shop located on road margin of Gudibanda to Rolla Road. He further submitted that, the 5th respondent issued notice dated 25.05.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the shop within 2 days. To the said notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 30.05.2025. But without considering the same, the 5th respondent had issued another notice dated 05.06.2025 by mentioning the same contents of earlier notice dated 25.05.2025. He further submitted that, later on 09.06.2025, the 5th respondent issued impugned notice by mentioning the same contents of earlier notices (dated 25.05.2025 and 05.06.2025) and thereby directed the petitioner to remove the structures in the subject property within two(02) days, otherwise they will remove the unauthorized structures and recover the expenses incurred from the petitioner. He further contended that the said impugned notice was issued without issuing any prior show cause notice seeking explanation and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the impugned notice though styled as notice, virtually it is a direction given to the petitioner to remove the structures in the subject property by giving two(02) days time. If the direction contained in the said notice is allowed to materialize, the rights of the petitioners will be affected. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat fairly conceded that concerned authority ought to have issued a show-cause notice before issuing the impugned notice and in case, if this Court inclines to interfere with the said impugned notice/proceedings, liberty may be given to the concerned authority to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Perused the impugned notice/proceedings dated 09.06.2025. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice does not speak anything about prior issuance of any show-cause notice to the petitioner seeking their explanation. It is well settled that, even an encroacher is entitled for a reasonable notice. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. Therefore, in view of the above, issuing the impugned notice with such a direction, without issuing any prior show-cause notice and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, is un-sustainable under law. As such, the impugned notice is ex-facie illegal, unsustainable and was issued in clear violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the above stated circumstances, there is no purpose in keeping this writ petition pending inviting counter. As such, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned notice dated 09.06.2025, at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned notice dated 09.06.2025. However, this order does not preclude the concerned authority to take steps in accordance with law, by issuing proper show-cause notice/ inviting explanation and providing an opportunity of personal hearing and to pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the concerned parties. Till then, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS