1 APHC010329302015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 41897/2015 Between: Inkollu Venkateswara Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A VARALAKSHMI 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: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned provisional order dated 28.11.2015 in B.A.No.8/G1/15 and pasted on the house of the petitioner on 8.12.2015 even without providing any opportunity or conducting any personal inspection that too without serving any copy of the alleged certification and consequently trying to pull down the structures which were built in pursuance to the permissions accorded by the 2nd respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently set aside the same….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 3. While ordering notice before admission on 23.12.2015, this Court passed the following interim order: “ ….There shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the provisional order dated 28.11.2015 in B.A.No.8/G1/15 of the Commissioner, Kanigiri Nagar Panchayat, Kanigiri-2nd respondent, until further orders.” 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 furnished a copy of instructions, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had obtained permission for construction of the first and second floors in the said premises vide B.A.No.8/G1/2015, dated 28.01.2015. But, while the petitioner was going to construct the building in deviation of the approved plan, the 2nd respondent issued provisional order notice dated 02.07.2015 vide U.C.B.A.No.8/G1/2015 under Section 228 of A.P.M. Act 3 1965, instructing the petitioner to stop the construction and to show cause for the deviations within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It is further stated as the petitioner refused to receive the said notice, it was affixed to the subject building under construction. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim orders on 23.12.2015. It is also further stated that pending the writ petition, the petitioner has completed the construction of the said building. However, the same could not be regularized as the petitioner has not submitted any application seeking regularization of the said deviations. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already completed the construction of the building pending writ petition, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit an explanation to the impugned notice dated 02.07.2015 seeking regularization of the construction to the extent, which was made in deviation to the sanctioned building permission, under BRS scheme, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on submission of such application, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents against the petitioner. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 03.01.2025 KGR