APHC010355042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17830 OF 2025 Between: Vadakattu Harika, W/o. Vijay Kumar, Aged about 39 years. Proprietor of “The TASTEE TOWN” located at 4-18-41/B, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, State of Andhra Pradesh, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 3. The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Guntur 4. Kamisetty Sridhar, S/o Harinadha Babu, Aged about 52 29-3, Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur-522006. 5. Kamisetty Bhavani, W/o Kamisetty Sridhar, aged about 47 years, R/o 3-29-3, 1®’ Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur - 522006. Secretariat years, R/o 3- ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned confirmation order dated 09-07-2025 I bearing No. 003/099/GMC/UC/2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent under Sections 452(2) & 461(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and Section 115(2) of the APCRDA Act, 2014, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, and liable to be set aside, and consequently direct the Respondent to refrain from taking coercive action pursuant to the said order. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Conformation Order vide Notice NO.2/34/1021/GMC/UC/2024 dated 10-12-2024 passed by the 3 Respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. rd lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of the impugned confirmation order dated 09-07-2025 bearing No.003/099/GMC/UC/2025 passed by the Respondent Sections 452(2) and 461(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, and Section 115(2) of the APCRDA Act, 2014, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. under Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI N. SRIHARI The Court made the following order: APHC010355042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17830/2025 Between: 1.VADAKATTU HARIKA, W/0 VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF THE TASTEE TOWN LOCATED AT 4-18-41/B, CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1 .THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR 4.KAMISETTY SRIDHAR, S/0 HARINADHA BABU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/0 3-29-3, LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR-522006. 5.KAMISETTY BHAVANI, W/0 KAMISETTY SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/0 3-29-3, 1ST LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR - 522006. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned confirmation order dated 09-07-2025 bearing No. 003/099/GMC/UC/2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent under Sections 452(2) and 461(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and Section 115(2) of the APCRDA Act, 2014, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, and liable to be set aside, and consequently direct the Respondent to refrain from taking coercive action pursuant to the said order and pass such lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay the operation of the Conformation Order vide Notice NO.2/34/1021/GMC/UC/2024 dated 10-12-2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to Suspend the operation of the impugned confirmation order dated 09-07- 2025 bearing No.003/099/GMC/UC/2025 passed by the Respondent under Sections 452(2) and 461(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, and Section 115(2) of the APCRDA Act, 2014, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.N SRIHARI The Court made the following: > THE HONbURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17830/2025 ORDER: 1. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken 867 Sq.yards of land from respondents 4 and 5 for setting up a temporary structure for conducting a canteen vide oral agreement. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 have some differences with regard to the lease and the petitioner has filed OS.No.148 of 2025 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur seeking declaratory relief and injunction against respondents 4 and 5. The respondents 4 and 5 also filed a suit vide OS.No.788 of 2025 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur seeking eviction of the petitioner and others from the property. 2 The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents 4 and 5 have approached the 2^^ respondent and got issued a notice for demolition of the temporary structure. It is submitted that the 3'''^ respondent has issued a provisional order on 30.06.2025 the petitioner to submit the reply with regarad to calling upon unauthoriazed construction of RCC structure. 3 The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that vide a reply dated 07.07.2025, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation duly informing the 3'^^ respondent with regard to the pendency of civil suits and also submitted that no permanent structure was constructed a restaurant. It is and it was only a temporary structure for running 1 submitted that the 3'^ respondent vide proceedings dated 09.07.2025 had issued an order of confirmation calling upon the petitioner to demolish the construction within seven days dr further action would be initiated from the respondent side. 4. The learned senior counsel further submits that though a detailed reply was submitted the confirmation order does not reflect or refer to the same. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 submits that the petitioner has raised a temporary structure without obtaining any permission. Heard the learned senior counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel for 3'^ respondent and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. 6. The impugned order does not refer to the reply submitted by the petitioner and also indicates that the petitioner has failed to submit the reply. That apart, the 3^^ respondent has not considered the temporary structures which are set up for running a restaurant and that there is no RCC structure to be considered as permanent in nature and would require demolition. 7. Considering the submissions that the structure erected is temporary, it can detached and can be re-established elsewhere. This Court is inclined to direct the 3'’'^ respondent not to disturb the possession of the petitioner without following the due process of law and any action against the petitioner shall be in accordance with the law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off at the admissionstage. No costs. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- P. VINOD t^AR assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Pri secretary, Municipal Adnrinistration and Urban Development ' State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District. and Director of Municipal Administration, State of 2. The Commissioner Andhra Pradesh, Tadepalli, Guntur District. , Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur Anantha, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Commissioner 4. One CC to Sri Venkata Durga Rao for Municipal Corporations[OPUC] CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC 6. One CC to Sri N. Srihari, Advocate [OPUC] GP for Municipal Administration 5. One and Urban Development, 7. Two CCS to High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:14/07/2025 ORDER WP No.17830 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS