APHC010141542023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. SHAIK RAFI, S/O.NEELU BASHA @ BASHA, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O. NEAR MADINA MOSQUE, CHINNAPADUGUPADU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF AP, PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 4. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PADUGUPADU GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. ATLURU VENKATESWARLU REDDY, S/O.SRINIVASULU REDDY R/O. PADUGUPADU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7170/2023 SHAIK RAFI, S/O.NEELU BASHA @ BASHA, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O. NEAR MADINA MOSQUE, CHINNAPADUGUPADU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PADUGUPADU GRAM OVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ATLURU VENKATESWARLU REDDY, S/O.SRINIVASULU REDDY R/O. PADUGUPADU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SHAIK RAFI, S/O.NEELU BASHA @ BASHA, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O. NEAR MADINA MOSQUE, CHINNAPADUGUPADU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PADUGUPADU GRAM OVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ATLURU VENKATESWARLU REDDY, S/O.SRINIVASULU REDDY R/O. PADUGUPADU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE ...RESPONDENT(S): RC,J W.P.No.7170 of 2023 2 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 4th respondent in passing Orders vide proceedings Roc.No.105/2019-20, dt.10.03.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of Natural Justice, one without jurisdiction and violation of Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the Orders in Roc.No.105/2019-20, dt.10.03.2023 by setting aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 suspend the Orders passed by the 4th respondent vide proceedings Roc.No.105/2019-20, dt.10.03.2023 pending disposal of the Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J PRADEEP KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HABIBULLA SHAIK 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.No.7170 of 2023 3 ORDER This writ petition is filed questioning the orders passed by respondent no.4 vide proceedings Roc.No.105/2019-20, dated 10.03.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Heard Sri J.Pradeep Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri MatteguntaSudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Sri J.Pradeep Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, would contend that earlier respondent no.4-Panchayat issued notice dated 28.09.2021 directing the petitioner to remove the gate and the petitioner submitted his explanation and as respondent no.4 without considering the explanation attempted to remove the gate, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.no.25286 of 2021 and the same was disposed of vide orders dated 15.11.2022 directing the respondents to consider the explanation and take steps in accordance with law. He would further contend that thereafter, the respondent no.4 issued the impugned notice dated 10.03.2023 directing the petitioner to remove the steps raised in the street site, in violation of principles of natural justice and RC,J W.P.No.7170 of 2023 4 without jurisdiction. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned notice. 4. Per contra, M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel, would submit that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in issuing the impugned notice and there is no violation of principles off natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Through the impugned notice the petitioner was directed to remove the steps raised in street site. Issuing notice with such direction not preceded by any show cause notice being in violation of principles of natural justice is unsustainable. The learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this court to reference no.4 of the impugned notice and submitted that the impugned notice is preceded by notices dated 17.09.2021, 28.09.2021 and 01.11.2021 and therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Perusal of the said notices would indicate that they were issued directing the petitioner to remove the gate but not the steps as directed in the RC,J W.P.No.7170 of 2023 5 impugned notice. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned standing counsel is rejected. 8. It is fairly settled that the authorities cannot travel beyond the contents of the notice. It is the essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard. 9. In the instant case, as stated supra, the notices referred to at reference no.4 of the impugned notice, the petitioner was asked to remove the gate, but not the steps and therefore, issuance of the impugned notice to remove the steps is beyond the contents of the earlier notices issued and hence the petitioner had not been given fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard regarding the subject issue of removing steps. Thus, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice in issuing the impugned notice. 10. As violation of principles of natural justice is glaring on the face of the impugned notice, the same is liable to be set aside and this writ petition can accordingly be disposed of. RC,J W.P.No.7170 of 2023 6 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the notice of respondent no.4 vide proceedings no.Roc.No.105/2019-20, dated 10.03.2023. However, this order does not preclude the authorities from taking steps against the gate or steps raised by the petitioner, if found in violation of Building Rules, but strictly in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dated: 25th November, 2025. RR