P RAGHU KUMAR Vs. SPECIAL OFFICER MUNICIPALITY BHADRACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are coming up for admission today. Notice Before Admission had been ordered and status quo for a limited period was granted, which is being extended from time to time. In Writ Petition Nos. 10055, 10136, 10137, 10223 of 2006, 4th respondent came on record on the ground that at his instance and on his representation only, the present impugned action had been initiated and hence he must also be given opportunity of hearing in these writ petitions before passing an order. It is stated that in Writ Petition No. 10274 of 2006 also the facts are similar and in fact the implead application and vacate application were already moved, and further submissions are made that inasmuch as the facts are similar, the said writ petition also can be disposed of.

(2.) These writ petitions are filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the respective notices dated 3.5.2006 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, violative of provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and further issue such other suitable directions.

(3.) The facts are almost similar in all these writ petitions and the averments made even in the respective counter-affidavits appear to be almost similar. At the outset it may be stated that the notices impugned dated 3.5.2005 are styled as encroachment notices under Section 192 of A.P. Municipalities Act, wherein it was specified