P VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner questions G.O.Ms.No. 1620, MA., Municipal Administration and Urban Development (12) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 9-12-1993 and the notification appended thereto whereunder it is stated as follows :

(2.) On 17-12-1993 notice before admission was directed and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration took notice for the 1st respondent and Mrs. Sumalini Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, took notice for respondents 2 and 3 and requested time for obtaining instructions. Today the learned Government Pleader produced the record. He submits that the record does not disclose that any notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the impugned G.O. He however submits that the record discloses that an enquiry was conducted by the District Collector of Visakhapatnam district and that he submitted a report to the 1st respondent based oh which the impugned G.O. was issued. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Urban Development Authority Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") referred to in the impugned G.O. is as follows:

(3.) In the circumstances, as I have heard the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, and it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not given any opportunity before the impugned G.O. was issued, the writ petition will have to be allowed on the ground that the said G.O. is opposed to the principles of natural justice. However, it is made clear that it is open to the respondents to initiate action afresh in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.