APHC010327772024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16643/2024 Between: Maruprolu Venkata Srinivasula Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BHARGAV THIMMARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. YADAVALLI RAMESH 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI 5. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action, things and deeds of Respondents in allowing Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in running the Church by using mike in high volume in D.No1-11- 49/7, Uppalavari Veedhi, 5th Ward, Bapatia without any permissions or approvals to the construction either from the District Collector or Respondent Municipality or Police, which is illegal irregular, unjust, arbitrary against to the Principals of Natural Justice, contrary to the guidelines enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.172 dated 12-10-2010 and G.O.Ms.No. 376 dated 29-11- 2012 in violation of Rules of the Layout and Building Rules and Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300- A of Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 forthwith stop the activities of Church by demolishing the illegal Church construction made in D.No.l-11-49/7, Uppalavari Veedhi, 5th Ward, Bapatia Town and District by taking action against Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and pass such…” 2. The petitioner herein is a resident of D.No.1-11-42/A of 5th ward, Bapatla town and has been in possession of the same for the last 21 years; in front of the said property, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in D.No.1-11-49/7, Uppalavari Veedhi, 5th ward, Bapatla have constructed an illegal and unauthorized shed in the land opposite to the petitioner’s property in Sy.No.597/4 and are conducting church activities using high volume mike. As such, the petitioner, under RTI Act sought certain information with regard to the permissions and sanctions for running a church; in turn, he was informed that that the unofficial respondents are not having any kind of permissions to run a church in the said property and that the same is in a residential zone. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents on 29.01.2024, requesting to stop the illegal activities being performed by respondent Nos.5 and 6, but till date no action has been initiated. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel, Sri. Srinivasa Rao.B and Y. Ramesh, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 4. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions of the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated that immediately after receiving the representation from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has issued provisional notices to respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 29.01.2024, which was received by them, but have failed to submit a reply to the same, the 3rd respondent, after following the due procedure, has issued confirmation order notice dated 13.02.2024 subsequent to which the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have approached the 3rd respondent and have stated that they will apply for necessary permissions and that they would pay the penalty as per law, but, till date the unofficial respondents have not applied for the same. Hence, necessary action has been initiated against the respondent Nos.5, 6 and accordingly, a charge sheet has also been prepared against them which is yet to be submitted before the concerned court. 5. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that upon receipt of the representation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent after duly following the procedure contemplated under the Municipality Act, has issued notices to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 29.01.2024, 13.02.2024 subsequent to which, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have approached the 3rd respondent stating that they would obtain necessary permissions to run a church in the residential building in D.NO.1-11-49/7, Uppalavari Veedhi, 5th ward, Bapatla. The official respondents have also filed a charge sheet against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 which is yet to be presented before the concerned Court. Mere filing of the Charge Sheet does not prevent the official respondents especially respondent No.3 to initiate further action in pursuance of the confirmation notice dated 13.02.2024. 6. In view of the same, as action has already been initiated against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in pursuance of the representation submitted by the petitioner, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to follow the due procedure as contemplated under Municipality Act in initiating action against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in pursuance of the confirmation notice dated 13.02.2024. The said process shall be initiated within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 29.01.2025 GSS