IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO WRIT PETITION NO: 15438/2025 Between: 1. SURENDER BASANI, S/O. SAYANARAYANA BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 54 FILM COLONY, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA 2. NARENDER BANSAL,, ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 54 FILM COLONY, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY. MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL COOPERATION, REP BY COMMISSIONER CANNEL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL COOPERATION. CANNEL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DIST 4. GADDE NARAYANA RAO S/O LATE POORNA CHANDRA RAO, R/O D.NO.33-17-4, 2ND FLOOR, LAKSHMI ENCLAVE, RAMANADHAM STREET, KASTURI BAI PETA, VIJAYAWADA IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 13.08.2025 VIDE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 15438 and 14197/2025 PETITION NO: 15438/2025 SURENDER BASANI, S/O. SAYANARAYANA BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 54-19-20/14A, FLAT NO. 109, FILM COLONY, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA-520008. NARENDER BANSAL,, S/O. SAYANARAYANA BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 54-19-20/14A, FLAT NO. 109, FILM COLONY, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA-520008 ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY. MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SECREATIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL COOPERATION, REP BY COMMISSIONER CANNEL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL COOPERATION. CANNEL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DIST GADDE NARAYANA RAO S/O LATE POORNA CHANDRA RAO, R/O 4, 2ND FLOOR, LAKSHMI ENCLAVE, RAMANADHAM STREET, KASTURI BAI PETA, VIJAYAWADA - 52001 R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 13.08.2025 VIDE [3457] TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER SURENDER BASANI, S/O. SAYANARAYANA BANSAL, AGED 20/14A, FLAT NO. 109, S/O. SAYANARAYANA BANSAL, AGED 20/14A, FLAT NO. 109, ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECREATIAT THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL COOPERATION, REP BY COMMISSIONER CANNEL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL COOPERATION. CANNEL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. GADDE NARAYANA RAO S/O LATE POORNA CHANDRA RAO, R/O 4, 2ND FLOOR, LAKSHMI ENCLAVE, RAMANADHAM 52001 R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 13.08.2025 VIDE 2 ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y V SITHA RAMA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SAI PHANINDRA KUMAR 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC WRIT PETITION NO: 14197/2025 Between: 1. R SRINIVAS, S/O. R SITA RAMAIAH, MALE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC.PROPRIETOR OF SRI SAI SRINIVASA METAL STORES, D. NO. 27-6-141, PRAKASAM ROAD GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA 2. SHAIK SUFIAN KAFIL,, S/O. MASTAN VALI SHAIK, MALE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC. PROPRIETOR OF KAFIL BAGS AND MORE D. NO. 27-6-141, PRAKASAM ROAD GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA 3. RANGA KISHORE,, S/O. RSS SUBRAHMANYAM, MALE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR OF LAKSHMI SRINIVASA METAL STORES D. NO. 27-6-141, PRAKASAM ROAD GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA 4. RANGA MURALI ICRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. R SITA RAMAIAH, MALE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR OF LAKSHMI SRINIVASA METAL STORES D. NO. 27-6-141, PRAKASAM ROAD GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA 5. MAJETY MURALI KRISHNA, S/O. M BHIMA SANKAR RAO, MALE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. OCC. PROPRIETOR OF SIVA SANKAR MEDICAL STORES D. NO. 27-6-141, PRAKASAM ROAD GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER(S) 3 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, RQP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CANAL ROAD, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CANAL ROAD, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA 4. SRI GADDE NARAYANA RAO, S/O. LATE POOMA CHANDRA RAO, MALE, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 33-17-4, 2ND FLOOR, LAKSHMI ENCLAVE, RAMANADHAM STREET, KASTURI BAI PETA, VIJAYAWADA - 520 010 5. SRI T DALAIAH, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS, AGED. MAJOR, OCC. ADVOCATE NEAR SAMATA PARTY OFFICE, SUNNAPUBATTILU, VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B V S CHALAPATI RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SAI PHANINDRA KUMAR 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC The Court made the following: 4 Common Order: The petitioners are aggrieved by the demolition order dated 30.05.2025 and the consequential notice dated 09.06.2025. The petitioners in W.p.No.15438 of 2025 challenging the notice dated 12.03.2025. The challenge in both the writ petitions pertains to the demolition of building which is precariously standing as the issue is common in both the writ petitions a common order is passed. The petitioners are the tenants of the premises and claiming that the owner of the building got issued certificate of instability from Siddhartha Engineering College and got issued the impugned proceedings to the official respondents. 2. This Court considering the submissions of the petitioners that the inspection was conducted and report was furnished by the team of the said college without the presence of the petitioners. This Court vide order dated 13.08.2025 referred the issue of ascertaining the structural stability and condition of the building to the Civil Engineering Department of JNTU Kakinada. 3. The structural stability certificate is furnished in a sealed cover before this Court. The JNTU Kakinada, Civil Engineering Department, had deployed a team of professors from the college who visited the subject building and conducted the inspection. The team of experts have recommended as follows: 1. The ground floor of the Building is poorly maintained being very old construction it is suggested not to take up any modification or repairing any portion of the building which may lead to deterioration leading to failure of the building. 2. As the building served the purpose beyond it capacity no rehabilitation in the form of surface treatment, corrosion arresting, concrete repair, crack repair and water proofing may not give desired life to the building and hence not suggested as the modifications may lead to further damages to the building. 5 3. The committee opinion that the building served its age and it is not safe and hence recommended to dismantle the building as it is in dilapidated stage. The occupants at the ground floor level bear a great risk of life as the collapse of the damaged portions of the roofs slabs may take place without any warning. 4. Considering the recommendation of the experts who visited the building, it is evident that the building has served its age and is not safe, and dismantling the said building was suggested. It is also stated that the occupants of the building are exposed to great risk of life in the event of collapse of the damaged portion of the roof slabs. 5. The report furnished by the experts is perused by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 6. The grievance of the petitioners challenging the notice dated 12.03.2025 cannot be entertained by this Court, as the report of JNTU Kakinada indicates the imminent threat to the life of the occupants or visitors to the said premises. In such circumstances, the said building would have to be pulled down immediately in order to protect the lives of the occupants, visitors, or neighbors. 7. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would have to take appropriate steps for sealing the building and taking further steps for pulling it down to ensure the safety of the occupants, residents, or neighbors of the said property. 8. Needless to say, the petitioners shall vacate the premises and remove their movables, furniture, and other fixtures within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable the 2nd respondent to demolish the same. It is also made clear that the 2nd respondent shall erect 6 requisite sign boards indicating that the building is in a precarious condition and is likely to collapse at any moment. 9. In W.P.No.14197 of 2025, the undertaking of the petitioners to vacate the premises on or before 30.06.2025 is on record and he is not disputed by the petitioners. As such it is in the interest of the petitioners and their families to vacate and remove their belongings for furniture etc., as expeditiously as possible to facilitate the respondent authorities to take further steps in accordance with the suggestion(s) of the expert report. 10. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed off with the above said observations. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 22.09.2025 PNS