IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6668 OF 2025 Between; Sri Anchala Narayana Swamy, S/o A. Pedda Konaiah, Aged about 51 years, R/o D. No. 28/4/764-1, Old State Bank Colony, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Anantapur District. 3. The Towing Planning Officer, Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Anantapur District. ...Respondents^ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue may a Writ, Order, or Direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 3rd respondent in issuing Provisional Order vide Notice. No. 01/WPRS43/2025 dated 02.01.2025 for removal of alleged unauthorized compound - wall with shed under section 452 (2), 461 (2) of APMC Act and under with 82 and 90 (1) of APMR and UD Act, 2016 without section 89 (3) read any authority of law, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution of india. Consequently, set aside the provisional order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Notice. No. 01/WPRS43/2025 dated 02.01.2025. ^ lA NO: 1 OF 202fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to suspend the provisional order issued by the 3rd vide Notice. No. 01/WPRS43/2025 dated: 02.01.2025.^ Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S ANJALI PRIYA LEARNED REPRESENTING SRI. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN may be respondent COUNSEL AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos 2&3: SRI VIJAY, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI P VENGAL REDDY SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION The Court made the following order: APHC010127242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6668/2025 Between: Sri Anchala Narayana Swamy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following ORDER: ...RESPONDENT(S) Heard Ms.Anjali Priya, learned counsel representing Sri K.Srinivas learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijay, learned counsel representing Sri P.Vengal Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri Shahid Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for 1 St respondent. 2. Assailing the provisional order issued by respondent vide Notice NO.01/WPRS43/2025 dated 02.01.2025 under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) r/w 428 & 429 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short “APMR Act, 955”) and Sections 89(1 & 2) r/w 82, 90(1) of Andhra Pradesh % Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Act, 2016 (for short “APMR & UDA 2016”) (Act 5 of 2016), the above writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to issue notice. The competent authority is the Commissioner- Municipal Corporation. Thus, learned counsel would contend to set aside the proceedings impugned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Sri Vijay, learned counsel would submit that the powers of Commissioner regarding issuance of notice under Section 452(1) and 461(1) r/w 428 & 429 of APMC Act, 1955 and Sections 89(1 & 2) r/w 82, 90(1) of APMR & UDA 2016 were delegated to Town Planning Building Officer and above cadre vide G.O.Ms.No.49 (MA&UD) Department, dated 01.02.2018. 3. 4. 5. A perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 01.02.2018, certain powers regarding issuance of notice are delegated from Commissioners of the Corporations to different ranks of officers. In respect of notice under Section 452 of APMC Act, 1955 and Section 89 (1&2) of MRUD Act, 2016, the are delegated to the Town Planning Building Officer and above cadre. powers 6. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Town Planning Building Officer, Anantapur Municipal Corporation is not the competent authority to issue Ex.P.1 notice falls to the ground. Learned counsel would further contend that no explanation has been submitted so far to Ex.P.1 impugned notice. 7. Three days time has been given to the petitioner to submit explanation vide Ex.P.1. The notice is dated 02.01.2025. Till now, the petitioner did not submit any explanation. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit an explanation to Ex.P.1 vide Notice NO.01/WPRS43/2025 dated 02.01.2025 within one (1) week from today. Upon an 8. 3 receipt of the said explanation, respondents 2 and 3 shall pass appropriate orders strictly by following the procedure mandated under APMC Act, 1955 and the Rules and MRUD Act, 2016. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- V.SAVITHRI GOWRl assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// §f SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 2. The Commissioner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Anantapur District. 3. The Towing Planning Officer, Anantapur Municipal Corporation Anantapur District. 4. One CC to Sri. K Srinivas Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. P Vengal Reddy SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC 6. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admin and Urban Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:13/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6668 of 2025 ? 09 APR 2025 ' Current Section 52: fi9. DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS