APHC010658112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34016/2025 Between: 1. M/S.NEKKANTIS CAKE HOUSE,, D.NO.10-22, MYLURAI CENTRE, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR NEKKANTI VENU MADHAVA RAO. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - PANCHAYAT RAJ, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 4. THE ASST FOOD CONTROLLER, FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS OF INDIA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 5. THE GOLLAPUDI GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, NTR DISTRICT. 6. ALLAPATI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN. AGED MAJOR, R/O D.NO. 10-23, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, NTR 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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the proceedings in ROC.NO.81/PCB/2025, dated 27.11.2025 issued by the 5th respondent directing the petitioner to stop the preparing the Bakery items without considering the explanation dated 29.10.2025 as illegal arbitrary violation of procedure contemplated under the U/s.120 of AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and also violation of Article 19 (1) (g) and 301 of Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the 5th respondent not to interfere with the activities of the petitioner and pass 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned proceedings ROC.No.81/PCB/2025, dated 27.11.2025 issued by the 5th respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 vacate the interim order dated 08-12-2025 in I.A.No.l of 2025 in W.P.No.34016 of 2025 dismiss and the writ petition with exemplary costs and pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI p. 3 3. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri B.V.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development for respondents 1 & 2; Sri B.V.Ramarao, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent; Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for 5th respondent and Sri N.Subba Rao, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri M.Devi Prasad, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. 2. Impugning the proceedings vide ROC.No.81/PCB/2025, dated 27.11.2025, issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent, directing the petitioner to stop the bakery manufacturing unit in D.No.10- 22, Gollapudi village, the above writ petition is filed. 3. The 6th respondent, a resident of D.No.10-23 of Gollapudi village, made a complaint to the 5th respondent. The Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent issued a notice vide ROC.No.81/2024, dated 24.10.2025, calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 29.10.2025. Thereafter, the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent addressed a letter dated 19.11.2025 to the A.P. Pollution Control Board, Vijayawada, requesting an inspection of the premises. The officials of the Board inspected the premises on 21.11.2025 and forwarded the report to the 5th respondent vide Lr.No.D-5/PCB/RO-VJA/2025-994, dated 25.11.2025. p. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the report dated 25.11.2025 of the Pollution Control Board, the Secretary of the 5th respondent did not conduct any further enquiry. He would further submit that a copy of the report of the Pollution Control Board was not furnished to the petitioner, enabling him to submit a proper explanation. 5. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent, would submit that the inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner, and he is aware of the contents of the inspection report. Thus, non-furnishing the copy of the report will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. 6. Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent, supported Ex.P1 proceedings dated 27.11.2025. 7. Thus, as seen from the pleadings, as narrated supra, there is no dispute regarding the complaint made by the 6th respondent on 16.10.2025; notice issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent dated 24.10.2025, and the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 29.10.2025. 8. As seen from the inspection proceedings of the 3rd respondent, filed along with the counter-affidavit of the 6th respondent, the officials of the Board inspected the premises, i.e., Nekkanti’s Cake House, bearing D.No.10-22, Y.Junction, Gollapudi, on 21.11.2025. The copy of the report, as seen from the letter, was furnished to the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent, the District Panchayat Officer, Vijayawada and also to the 6th respondent. Page 5 of 6 9. It may be a fact that the authority might have inspected the premises in the presence of the petitioner's proprietor. Having inspected, the authority should have furnished the report to the petitioner, also enabling him to submit proper explanation vis-à-vis observations made by them in the report. The Panchayat Secretary of 5th respondent should have furnished the copy of the report to the petitioner to submit proper explanation. The proceedings impugned do not indicate furnishing the copy of the report of the 3rd respondent to the petitioner. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepak Ananda Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra1, held thus: “18. It is a well-established principle of Administrative Law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilised has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. Surveying the precedents extensively, M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain's treatise on Principles of Administrative Law [M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (LexisNexis, 8th Edn.) at pp. 490-91.] notes that: “If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial p. 6 1 (2023) 11 SCC 130 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 34 pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In the case at hand, as observed supra, the letter addressed by the 3rd respondent to the 5th respondent was not furnished to the petitioner. The proceedings impugned, without serving the inspection report, violate the principles of natural justice. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings vide ROC.No.81/PCB/2025, dated 27.11.2025, are set aside. Since the report of the 3rd respondent has been received by the petitioner, the petitioner shall submit the explanation to the 5th respondent within two weeks from today. Thereafter, the 5th respondent shall conduct an enquiry, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent and pass a reasoned order, within a period of four weeks. The petitioner and the 6th respondent shall cooperate with the enquiry conducted by the 5th respondent. 13. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD