APHC010212802015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29018/2015 Between: Shiak Shartat Ali, Guntur Dist ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secy Municipal Admn Urban Devt Dept Hyderabad 2 and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: 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 mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner for construction of a function hall in AELC Compound, D .No .17-3-172/A, T.S.No.908, Chilakaluripet Road, Narsaraopet, Guntur District, by Endorsement, dt.31.03.2015, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's application, dt.22.12.2014, in accordance with law and grant construction permission as sought for therein...” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father has submitted an application on 22.12.2014 requesting permission for constructing function hall in T.S.No.908, door No.17-3-172/A, Chilakaluripet road, Narsaraopet Municipal limits, in an extent of 6243.99 square meters after obtaining 29 years 9 months lease from Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC) vide Doct.No.7038/2012, dated 27.03.2012. The 3rd respondent, after perusing the said plan and the ground situation has observed that the area in which the petitioner’s father intends to build a function hall is a residential zone. According to A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and the master plan of Narsaraopet Municipality which was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.489, dated 07.08.1993, if a function hall is to be constructed in a residential area and in case the plan approval for land exceeds 1000 square meters, the technical approval has to be issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning. As such, the file for the approval of plan for construction of function hall in the site proposed by the petitioner’s father was put on agenda for approval of the Council, in order to send the same for technical approval of Director of Town and Country Planning. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent instead of forwarding the said application to the Director of Town and Country Planning has simply rejected the application without furnishing any reasons vide endorsement dated 31.03.2015. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel. 4. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions of the 3rd respondent herein wherein it is stated that pending the present writ petition, the petitioner has submitted a fresh online building application vide B.A.No.TEMP/1024/0008/B/NSR/CHRPTRD/2016, dated 12.04.2016 for the proposed building in the aforesaid site. However, vide endorsement dated 30.05.2016, the petitioner was informed that the proposed site for construction of building was leased from AEL church, as such as per clause 3 of Section 5 of A.P.M. Act, 1965, NOC from District Collector is required. But, however, because of pendency of the present petition, no further action could be initiated by the 3rd respondent. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already submitted a fresh application on 12.04.2016, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to proceed further for grant of permission for construction of function hall in T.S.No.908, door No.17-3-172/A, Chilakaluripet road, Narsaraopet Municipal limits, in accordance with law. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 02.01.2025 GSS