Mukkamula Matyagiri v. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.994 of 2016 ORDER:

Heard.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the notice dated 19-12-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent under the WALTA Act.

The petitioners state that earlier a notice was given to them to which a reply was sent through their counsel. However, the same is rejected and a fresh notice is given by the 2nd respondent.

I do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition against the showcause notice as the petitioners have an opportunity to submit detailed explanation in response to the said notice and they are free to raise all their contentions.

Since the petitioners are given an opportunity to file explanation, it is open to them to avail the said opportunity. Hence, no reasons exist to entertain the writ petition.

However, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, two weeks time is granted to submit explanation and thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate decision under the WALT Act.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 07-01-2016 Prv

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.994 of 2016 07-01-2016 Prv