M. H. S. ANSARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sambasiva pratap, the learned Standing counsel forthe municipality.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an Association-Body ofthe lessees of the Municipal shops situated at Municipal Complex, Main Road, anakapalli, Visakhapatnam. Each of the members are said to be lessees of the shops in the said Municipal Complex and seek a direction against the respondent-Municipality from demolishing Shop Nos. 1 to 12 and shops Nos. 1 to 19.

( 3 ) SRI J. V. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the proposed action of demolishing the said structures which is a projection of 2 x 4 from the shops shutters, is contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice.

( 4 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless an opportunity of hearing is first afforded to the petitioners and an enquiry is conducted in the matter, the respondent cannot demolish the said structures. Any action of the respondent would be in violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, arbitrary and therefore, liable to be declared as void.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners are the lessees of the shops which belong to the municipality and the encroachments have been made on the passage way used by the public. The petitioners have not obtained any permission eitherfrom the Municipality in its capacity as a lessor or under Section 193 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short the Act ), though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been paying encroachment tax.

( 6 ) SECTION 192 of the Act enables the commissioner of the Municipality to remove the encroachments which may comprise of any projection, encroachment or obstruction. Section 228 ofthe Act speaks of demolition or alterations of building work unlawfully commenced or carried on. Under section 228 of the Act, a provision is made formakingaprovisionalorderand for issuing of a show-cause notice within a reasonable time as to why the said orders should not be confirmed. Section 192 of the Act, however, does not prescribe such a procedure.

( 7 ) LET us, therefore, consider the contentions as to the violation of principles of natural justice. Where the statute does not provide for the application ofthe principles of natural justice, the Court will infer their application to avoid unfairness and inj ustice. What unfairness requires, however, depends upon the nature of the investigation and the consequences it may have on a person affected by it. No unfairness, in my opinion, ensues in the present case, in the absence of a prior show-cause notice being issued to the petitioners or for affording them an opportunity of being heard judged by the conduct of the petitioners, namely, making of encroachments upon the pathway/passage used by the public and belonging to the municipality, without obtaining either its permission as lessor or as required under section 193 of the Act. Therefore, the action ofthe respondent-Municipality under section 192 ofthe Act seeking to remove the encroachments without notice to show cause or conducting an enquiry into the matter prior to directing the removal of encroachments cannot be termed either unfair or unreasonable.

( 8 ) I am supported in this view by a judgment of this Court in "b. Sreenivasulu and Others v. The Commissioner, ananthapur Municipality, Anantapur and another" (I) 1991 (II)ALT 142. In the said judgment, the provisions of Sections 192, 193 as well as Section 228 of the Act were considered and it was held that Section 228 of the Act contemplates issuance of a prior notice if the construction or re-construction is made unlawfully by the owner of the premises. But, where the land belongs to the government or the Municipality and when the petitioners are not the lawful owners of the said land, the Municipality is entitled to issue notices forremovingtheencroachments under Sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document