APHC010446402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 22762/2024 Between: 1. CHEKURI NARSIMHA RAJU, SON OF RAMA KRISHNA RAJU, AGE 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. B-1, MY HOME GRANDENIA, 0PP. CHAITANYA SCHOOL ROAD, KARRAVARI SAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. PENMETSA JIJIYA BAI,, WIFE OF VENKATA VENU GOPALA RAJU, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 30-1-13-1, LAKSHMI NILAYAM VADALIVARI STREET, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR, DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVRI DISTRICT,. 4. THE RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RUDA OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVRI DISTRICT. 5. THE PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, KARRAVARISAVARAM VILLAGE, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. p. 2 ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing provisional order dated 30.09.2024 by cancelling the plan approval granted vide proceedings BA No. 70/2023 dated 16.12.2023 for construction of individual residential building, the said provisional order had issued without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 26.09.2024 in reply to the notice issued by the 4th respondent dated 14.09.2024 the authorities are threatening to demolish the construction without following the procedure as contemplated under AP Panchayath Raj act 1994, which is highly illegal and arbitrary and violation of principals of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following procedure and without considering the explanation dated 26.09.2024 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the 4threspondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 26.09.2024 and to pass appropreate orders and further direct the 4th respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner untill passing of orders to the explanation pending disposal of the main Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. R K ACARYULU SC For RJY,KKD,ELR,AMP UDA 3. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra p. 3 The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Impugning the proceedings issued by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5 dated 30.09.2024, the above writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Sri P. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government for Panchayat Raj, appeared for respondents 1 to 3, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.5 and Sri R.K. Acharyulu, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners have purchased the agricultural land admeasuring 332 & 312 Square yards in Sy.Nos.31/1 & 7 under the registered document dated 08.03.2007. Thereafter, the petitioners have leased out the property to one Ch. Lakshmi Sahith Devi on 03.01.2024. The lessor obtained the requisite permission from the Pollution Control Board on 24.01.2024, for establishing the cold press unit. Some of the villagers filed W.P.No.6108 of 2024. An interim order was granted on 12.04.2024. While the matter stood thus, a show-cause notice dated 14.09.2024 (Ex.P2) was issued. The petitioners submitted an explanation on 26.09.2024 by way of speed post. Without considering the explanation, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5, passed the order impugned and cancelled the permission granted earlier vide B.A.No.70/2023, dated 16.12.2023. Learned counsel would also submit that the proceedings impugned suffer from the violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 4. Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel, on instructions, would submit that despite the show-cause notice Ex.P2, the petitioners failed to submit an explanation. Hence, the Ex.P1 proceedings were issued, cancelling the building permission granted earlier. Learned counsel would also submit that p. 4 the explanation filed along with the writ petition did not reach the office of respondent No.5 before passing the order impugned. 5. The point for consideration is : “Whether the proceedings impugned in the writ petition is legally sustainable?” 6. Shorn of all details, there is no dispute regarding the permission granted by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5 in favour of the 2nd petitioner vide Ex.P5 dated 16.12.2023, to construct a residential building. 7. A perusal of the show-cause notice would discern that the petitioners are making constructions, contrary to the permission granted vide Ex.P5. The petitioners, as seen from Ex.P3, submitted an explanation by way of speed post on 26.09.2024. In the proceedings impugned, there is no reference to the explanation submitted by the petitioners. In the show-cause notice, two days were provided to the petitioners to submit an explanation. Of course, the order was passed after 15 days. However, providing two days to submit an explanation violates the Principles of Natural Justice. 8. What is the reasonable time to submit an explanation neither specified in the Service Rules nor in the General Clauses Act. Based upon the seriousness of the issue, the authorities normally provide an opportunity to submit an explanation, either one week or two weeks. The object behind providing time to submit an explanation is that the recipient would submit an appropriate reply to the contents of the notice, if necessary, by collecting necessary information. It is also one of the facets of the Principles of Natural Justice. 9. In Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr v. The Chief Election Commissioner1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: p. 5 1 1978 (1) SCC 405 “63. In Wiseman v. Borneman [(1967) 3 All ER 1945] there was a hint of the competitive claims of hurry and hearing. Lord Reid said: “Even where the decision has to be reached by a body acting judicially, there must be a balance between the need for expedition and the need to give full opportunity to the defendant to see material against him.” 10. In Raymond Limited a Company Incorporated v. Union of India in W.P.No.26693 of 2023, the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh observed that the concept of reasonable opportunity demands that a reasonable period of time to reply to the notice should not be less than 15 days, if not more. 11. In Mukesh Mittal v. National Faceless Assessment Centre and others in C.W.P.No.9810 of 2022 a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana observed that there would be no gainsaying the assessee ought to have been furnished a reasonable time to respond to the draft assessment order/show cause notice to comply with the principles of natural justice. The same would also be consonant with a fair and transparent procedure. 12. A conspectus of the authorities referred to supra make the things more than discernible that 15 days is reasonable to provide an opportunity to the recipient to show cause to submit an explanation. However, if the time is stipulated in the statutes, or the lawmakers fix the time to issue notice and thereafter to submit an explanation, one should adhere to the same. In the absence of the same, a reasonable time, in the considered opinion of this Court, is 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 13. A show cause notice has the solemn purpose of informing the person about the material for which a response is being sought concerning a case, which may constitute a breach, for which he is being directed to submit an explanation. The very purpose of a show-cause notice is to enable the recipient to raise objections, if any, to the proposals made, and the concerned authority is required to address such objections, which is a fundamental p. 6 principle of natural justice. A show-cause notice pointing out violations would align with the principle of natural justice. 14. Another purpose behind serving a show cause notice is to make the noticee understand the exact case set up against the individual, which one has to meet in its reply, and the proposed action, which is intended to be taken against the individual, if the reply is unsatisfactory. The purpose of a show cause notice is to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. Both conditions must be fulfilled and must be reflected in the notice itself. If the notice is vague and incomplete, it violates the principles of natural justice. 15. The Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)2, held that to fulfil the requirement of principles of natural justice, a show cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz., (i) the material/grounds to be stated which, according to the department, necessitate an action; and (ii) the particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. 16. In Nasir Ahmad vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Ors3., the Apex Court held thus: “It is 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”. 17. In UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors.4 , the Apex Court held thus: “At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The p. 7 2 (2014) 9 SCC 105 3 (1980) 3 SCC 1 4 (2021) 2 SCC 551 basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order traveling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent.” 18. Thus, as seen from the observations referred to supra, the authority ought to have provided some reasonable time to submit an explanation. However, as pointed out supra, the petitioners have sent the explanation by way of speed post on 26.09.2024, and thereafter, the order impugned was passed on 30.09.2024. In the proceedings impugned, it was noticed that the authority did not receive the explanation. 19. Cancelling the permission which was granted earlier in favour of the petitioners, on the ground of violation, without considering the explanation, in the considered opinion of this Court, violates the Principles of Natural Justice. It is also an admitted fact that by virtue of the interim order granted in W.P.No.6108 of 2024, the construction was stalled. 20. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The proceedings issued by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5 dated 30.09.2024 are hereby set aside. (i) The Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5 shall fix the date to conduct a fresh inquiry by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty to submit the documents, if any, during the inquiry. (ii) After considering the explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioners, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5 shall pass a reasoned order, strictly as per the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder. p. 8 (iii) The petitioners shall not make any constructions till an order is passed by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5. The petitioners shall cooperate with respondent No.5 during the inquiry. (iv) The Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5 shall complete the exercise, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within two (02) months. (v) Pending the inquiry, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5 shall not demolish the structure either. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 10.03.2026 TVN p. 9 280 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 22762 of 2024 Date: 10.03.2026 TVN