APHC010567262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29665/2025 Between: 1. SMT.NANIPALLI ESWARAMMA,, W/O.NANIPALLI LAKSHMAN, AGED 51 YEARS CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF H.NO 5 RAVIKAMATHAM MADALAM, CHINAPACHILA ANAKAPALI DISTRICT - 531025, ANDHRA PRADESH 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 3. THE MANDAL PARSHID DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAVIKAMATAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DIST. 4. THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARSHID DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAVIKAMATAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DIST. 5. THE PANCHYATA SECREATRY, GAMIKAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAVIKAMATAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DIST. 6. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29665/2025 SMT.NANIPALLI ESWARAMMA,, W/O.NANIPALLI LAKSHMAN, AGED 51 YEARS CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF H.NO 5 RAVIKAMATHAM MADALAM, CHINAPACHILA ANAKAPALI 531025, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI THE MANDAL PARSHID DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAVIKAMATAM , ANAKAPALLI DIST. THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARSHID DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAVIKAMATAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DIST. THE PANCHYATA SECREATRY, GAMIKAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAVIKAMATAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DIST. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SMT.NANIPALLI ESWARAMMA,, W/O.NANIPALLI LAKSHMAN, AGED 51 YEARS CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF H.NO 5-31 RAVIKAMATHAM MADALAM, CHINAPACHILA ANAKAPALI ...PETITIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI THE MANDAL PARSHID DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAVIKAMATAM THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARSHID DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THE PANCHYATA SECREATRY, GAMIKAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, 2 7. SRI POTULA VARAHALU, S/O.POTULA PYDAIAH, AGED MAJOR, PEDDAPACHILA VILLAGE, RAVIKAMATHAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI 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 to issue any Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in issuing notice dated 21.07.2025 is illegal and arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's day to day poultry activities 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 to stay all further proceedings of notice dated 21.07.2025 issued by 5 respondent pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S.MOHANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW 3 The Court made the following order: Questioning the notice dated 21.07.2025 issued by respondent No.5 whereby the petitioner has been directed to stop chick rearing activities and construction of poultry form in the land admeasuring Ac.1.18 cents in survey Nos.11/13 and 11/17 situated in between Chinapachaila and Peddapachila villages, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri S.Mohana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Y.Koteswara rao, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat and Mandal Praja Parishads appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner had constructed a poultry from in the subject land after obtaining permission from respondent Nos.5 & 6 and No Objection Certificate from the elders of Pedapanchila village by investing huge amounts. He further submits that based on a representation made by respondent No.7 through the Public Grievance Redressal Systam (PGRS), respondent No.5, without proper verification of records, issued the impugned notice dated 21.07.2025, directing the petitioner to stop chick rearing activities and constructions of poultry farm. The petitioner has submitted a reply dated 14.10.2025 to respondent Nos.4 and 5 explaining the 4 factual position. Despite receipt of the petitioner’s reply, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have neither communicated any decision nor passed any order till date. He further submits that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been regularly visiting the poultry form and forced her to stop the chick rearing activities and close down the poultry unit. If the same is closed, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. He further submitted that though the impugned communication is styled as a notice, but virtually it is a direction that has given to the petitioner to stop the chick rearing activities and construction of poultry form. The said authority ought to have issued a Show Cause Notice before passing such an order. In fact, no prior show cause notice has been issued nor an opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that pursuant to a complaint made by respondent No.7 before the Public Grievance Redressal Forum alleging that the operation of petitioner’s poultry farm has led to an increase in mosquito population and cuased public health issued in the locality, respondent No.5 has issued the impugned Notice directing the petitioner to stop the poultry activities. However, the Panchayat Secretary ought to have issued Show Cause Notice before issuing the impugned notice. He further submitted that, if this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned notice, a liberty may be given to the Panchayat Secretary to take steps in accordance with law, after following due procedure. 5 5. To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to pass appropriate orders by duly taking into consideration the submissions made by learned standing counsel. 6. Perused the impugned notice dated 21.07.2025. The impugned notice does not speak anything about prior issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner seeking her explanation. Issuing the impugned notice containing such a direction, without issuing any prior show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is unsustainable under law. 7. 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 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. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. 8. Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration, since the impugned notice is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable and was issued in clear violation of principles of natural justice, the same is liabe to be 6 set aside even without inviting counter. As such, this Court is inclined to allow this Writ Petition at the admission stage itself. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the Notice dated 21.07.2025 issued by respondent No.5. However, this order shall not preclude the respondent authorities concerned from initiating appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law, after following due process and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 04.11.2025 MP 7 186 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.29665 OF 2025 04.11.2025 MP