Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Venkateswarlu Posani.
For the Respondent: GP For Municipal Admn. Urban Dev.

The term "dictum" refers to a statement or observation made by a judge in a legal opinion that is not essential to the decision in the case and therefore not legally binding as precedent. In the context of the provided legal document, the court's discussion and reasoning regarding the violation of principles of natural justice, the importance of considering explanations submitted by the petitioner, and the procedural irregularities in issuing subsequent notices during the pendency of a related Writ Petition can be characterized as dicta if they are not central to the court's ultimate ruling.

In this case, the court's emphasis on the necessity of considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the assertion that the impugned order was passed without such consideration, as well as the observation that issuing a second notice during the pendency of a Writ Petition is unjustified, serve as guiding principles or observations. These are intended to clarify the procedural requirements and natural justice principles applicable in administrative actions but are not strictly necessary to the disposal of the case.

Therefore, the court's remarks on the violation of natural justice principles, the importance of providing an opportunity of hearing, and the procedural irregularities in issuing notices during a pending litigation can be regarded as dicta—statements that elucidate legal principles but are not the core holding of the judgment.