APHC010358962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18390/2025 Between: 1. R MOHAN RAJU, S/O R.SANJIVA RAJU, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR, R/0 9-1159-C, CPI COLONY, GOOTY TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE GOOTY MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, GOOTY TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...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 toPleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Confirmation Order Notice No.GTY/2025 dt.07.07.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent under Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipality Act 1965 for removal of alleged illegal constructions made Petitioners Premises 9-1159-C, CPI Colony, Gooty Town, Anantapur District without making personnel inspection, without considering Petitioners Explanation dt.26.06.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and pass 2 IA 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Confirmation Order: Notice No.GTY/2025 dt.07.07.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent under Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipality Act 1965 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 The Court made the following Order: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 07.07.2025, whereby an order of confirmation was passed calling upon the petitioner to bring down the alleged irregular construction within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted a reply and explanation on 26.06.2025 to the show cause notice dated 13.06.2025, wherein the petitioner was called upon to explain and substantiate the alleged unauthorized construction. However, the impugned proceedings would indicate that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice, and as such, the order of confirmation was passed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner did not furnish the proper information and also did not furnish the correct details of the suits pending; as such, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. 4. Be that as it may, the impugned proceedings were passed without considering the reply dated 26.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner, even though the same is endorsed by the 2nd respondent. 5. On these considerations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings No.GTY/2025, dated 07.07.2025, leaving it open for the 2nd respondent to take steps in accordance with law duly granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No costs. 4 6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 21.07.2025 BMS