JUDGMENT M.Ganga Rao, J. - This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the notice issued by the 4th respondent, dated 31.08.2020, as not proper and valid as per the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and consequently to suspend the said notice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is in occupation of the subject shop room and conducting fair price shop by obtaining valid licence. Earlier when the respondent authorities tried to dispossess the petitioner without any notice, she approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15182 of 2020. This Court, while ordering notice before admission in the said writ petition directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the shop without following the procedure established by law, that is, without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner; however, the respondents are at liberty to proceed by following the due process of law. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued the impugned notice asking the petitioner to vacate the shop room immediately after receipt of the notice, otherwise the authorities of the 4th respondent will remove the structures at the cost of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice is issued under Section 401 of the HMC Act, 1955 referring to the earlier orders of this Court in W.P.No.15182 of 2020. However, the said notice is issued directly to vacate the shop room, without any prior notice or opportunity to the petitioner to submit her stand, which is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the HMC Act and the earlier orders of this Court in W.P.No.15182 of 2020. 5. Learned standing counsel fairly states that no prior notice is given calling for the explanation of the petitioner and by the impugned notice, the petitioner was directly asked to vacate the shop room. Therefore, he submits that if the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to treat the impugned notice as a show cause notice and liberty is given to the petitioner to submit her explanation, the ends of justice would be met. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the said submission. 7. Therefore, he submits that if the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to treat the impugned notice as a show cause notice and liberty is given to the petitioner to submit her explanation, the ends of justice would be met. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the said submission. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of both the counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court, in the interests of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the parties to treat the impugned notice as a show cause notice. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit her explanation to the notice, dated 31.08.2020, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such submission of the explanation by the petitioner, the 4th respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate reasoned orders, as per law, within a period of four weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner. Till the above said exercise is completed, the 4th respondent is directed not to take any coercive action to evict the petitioner from the subject shop. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.