APHC010197942020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12863 Between: Shaik Hussain and Others The Gudivada Municipality and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BALA KRISHNA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J DILEEP KUMAR 2. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12863 OF 2020 Shaik Hussain and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Gudivada Municipality and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): BALA KRISHNA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12863 OF 2020 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2, on the demolition of shopping complex which has been illegally conducting by the Respondents 3 and 4, in Door No. 4/272-B, Near APSRTC Bus Stand, Gudivada, Krishna District as arbitrary, illegal, improper, incorrect, capricious, violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action against Respondents 3 and 4 on their illegal demolition of shopping complex which has been conducting in Door No.4/272-B, near APSRTC Bus Stand, Gudivada, Krishna District and pass such other orders....” 2. The claim of the Petitioners is that they are doing footwear business under the name and style of “Indian Shoe Mart” in D.No. 4/272-B, near APSRTC Bus Stand, Gudivada, Krishna District since May, 2001 on lease as per the terms of Lease Agreement, dated 20.01.2016. As per agreement, the lease amount was agreed to be enhanced from time to time. The Respondents 3 and 4 are the landlords of shopping complex. The Respondent No.3 has enhanced the rent at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per month and that the Petitioners have expressed their inability to pay such huge rent, though the Petitioners have been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 7,320/- per month till October, 2019. Due to Covid-19, the said shop was closed, but the rent was being paid by way of Demand Draft. 3 3. While so, this Writ Petition came to be filed, as the Respondents 3 and 4 started demolition of first floor of the building complex, as the Petitioners did not agree to vacate the premises. 4. The Respondent No.1 filed Counter Affidavit stating that the Respondents 3 and 4 are obligated to obtain permission from the Respondent No.1 for demolition of building, but no such permission was sought or given in favour of the Respondents 3 and 4. Further, the requisition made on 18.07.2020 said to have been given by Respondents 3 and 4 was not received by the Respondent No.1. After filing this Writ Petition, the Respondent No.1 came to know that the demolition work of first floor was undertaken without any permission. 5. Subsequent to the institution of Writ Petition, the Respondent No.4 on 26.10.2020 had sought permission to permit him to demolish his old building and in reply thereto, the Respondent No.1 had informed the Respondent No.4 vide letter in Roc.No.2418/2020/G1, dated 13.11.2020 to approach the Bureau of Industrial Consultancy Services, University College of Engineering Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada to get Structural Soundness Certificate for taking further course of action. 6. Subsequently, another letter dated 19.04.2021 was given by the Respondent No.4 to the Respondent No.1 seeking permission for demolition of the building. In response thereto, the Respondent No.1 had instructed the Respondent No.4 to get Structural Soundness Certificate from Bureau of Industrial Consultancy Services, Andhra Loyola Institute of Engineering and 4 Technology, Vijayawada for further course of action vide Roc.No.2418/2020/G1, dated 24.06.2021. Accordingly, the Certificate was obtained by the Respondent No.4. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 would submit that the Petitioners have filed a suit O.S.No.401 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, which is pending for adjudication and that the Petitioners cannot seek relief in this Writ Petition. 8. Heard Sri Bala Krishna Sastry, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the official Respondents. 9.Having heard the respective counsels, this Court opines as under: The tenancy is not in dispute. As per the building soundness report dated 29.06.2021, the structure in question is a framed structure with beams, columns and slab. The NDT test results performed on the building frame excluding slabs i.e. beams and columns were satisfactory. 10. As the roof slab of the building is partially damaged, the said Institute made a recommendation either for retrofitting of the existing roof slab or for safe demolition of the structure. A reading of the report does not conclusively state that the structure is in dilapidated condition for immediate demolition. However, it is not for this Court to assess the structural stability, the Respondent Municipality is obligated to examine and formulate an independent opinion under Section 231 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and taken action accordingly. 5 11. Therefore, it is left open to the Respondent-Municipality to assess the structural stability of the building in question and come to an independent conclusion supported by reasons before passing any order of demolition. The parties are also at liberty to obtain Structural Soundness Certificate from any authority nominated by Respondent No.1 to establish their plea that the building is in sound condition or otherwise. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 21.03.2025 KK