B SIVAJI Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common question of and facts arise in these two writ petitions and therefore they are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioners herein constructed a shed for the establishment of a stone crushing machine in their respective premises and the impugned notice, which is purported to be the third notice under Sections 41(1) and 42(1) of AP.Urban Development Act, 1973, was issued directing the removal of the aforesaid construction. It is against that impugned order these writ petitions were filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.Venkateswara Rao contends that the impugned order was issued under Section 42(1) read with Section 41 of the Act without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause and therefore it is violative as principles laid down under Section 42(1) of the Act. The contention of Sri G.V.L. Narsimha Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the Urban Development Authority is that the impugned notice is the third notice issued to the petitioners, that the petitioners failed to submit explanation since two months, that the action taken by the respondent is legal, that an alternative remedy under Section 42(3) of the Act is available for the petitioners and hence it is open to the petitioners to avail the appellate remedy and therefore the writ is not maintainable.