PHC010366012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18382/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK HUSSAIN, S/O. GALIB SAHIB, AGED 75 YEARS. PROP INDIAN SHOE MART, DOOR NO.4/272-B NEAR A.P.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, GUDIVADA-521301. KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. SHAIK MOHAMMAD AFZAL,, S/O. SHAIK HUSSAIN, AGED 48 YEARS, C/O. INDIAN SHOE MART, DOOR NO. 4/272-B, NEAR A.P.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, GUDIVADA - 521301, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE GUDIVADA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GUDIVADA 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. YELCHURI VENKATA ADISESHU SUBBA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, BUSINESS,HINDU, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 8/274, SRIRAMAPURAM, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the inaction of Respondent No.1 in not following the orders of WP.No.18382 of 2025 Honble High Court in W.P.No. 12863 of 2020 dated 21.03.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, improper, incorrect, capricious, violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to follow the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.12863 of 2020 dated 21.03.2025 by nominating an authority of JNTU to obtain Structural Soundness Certificate of the building by the Petitioners and pass such 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 may be pleased to pass an order against the Respondents by directing the Respondents not to demolish the shop so also not to cut off amenities to the shop bearing Door No. 4/272-B, Near A.P.S.R.T.C.Bus Stand, Gudivada, Krishna District till pending disposal of main writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BALA KRISHNA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: WP.No.18382 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT FPETITION No.18382 OF 2025 ORDER : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by inaction on part of the respondent No.1 in not following the orders passed in WP.No.12863 of 2020, dated 21.03.2025 and seeks a consequent direction to the respondents to implement the orders passed by nominating an authority of JNTU to obtain structural soundness certificate of the building. 2. The petitioners are carrying on the business of footwear and accessories after having taken on lease the shop from respondent No.3. The 3rd respondent was in the process of demolishing the building and the petitioners approached this Court and filed WP.No.12863 of 2020. The said writ petition was disposed off on 21.03.2025, directing the respondent/ municipality to assess the structural stability before passing any orders of demolition. The petitioners were also granted liberty to obtain structural soundness certificate from any authority nominated by the municipality. Writ Appeal No.727 of 2025 was filed by the petitioners, which was disposed on 21.06.2025 upholding the opinion of the learned Single Judge in directing the municipality to assess the structural stability and soundness of the building and till such time restrained the private respondents WP.No.18382 of 2025 from demolishing the structure. It is submitted that the petitioners submitted a representation dated 26.05.2025, to obtain structural soundness certificate from JNTU, Hyderabad/Kakinada or any authority to establish the stand of the petitioners that the building is in a sound condition. It is the specific case of the petitioners is that the building is a sound and only at the behest of the 3rd respondent the 1st respondent has taken up the call of the 3rd respondent and aiding the 3rd respondent in demolishing the building. 3. The 2nd respondent has placed on record the stability report dated 24.06.2025 of the building of the 3rd respondent which was issued by Department of Civil Engineering, Siddartha Engineering College. The report was prepared by the Director, Infrastructure and Consultancy of the college. It is strongly recommended to fully dismantle the building under the supervision of a qualified structural engineer by following safety protocols. It is also recommended to dismantle in a systematic and controlled manner to prevent further collapse or unintended structural failures during the said process. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. WP.No.18382 of 2025 5. The petitioners in their representation dated 26.05.2025 calling upon the respondent/municipality to permit the petitioners to retrofitting the existing slab of the building with their expenses. Alternatively to permit the petitioners to obtain structural soundness certificate from JNTU, Hyderabad/Kakinada or any authority to establish that the building is sound. 6. With the report of the Department of Civil Engineering, the grievance of the petitioners is more or less addressed. That apart, the learned Single Judge while disposing off WP.No.12863 of 2020, left it open to the respondent/municipality to assess the structural stability of the building and come to a independent conclusion supported by reasons before passing any order of demolition. In pursuance of these orders, the 1st respondent has requested the Siddhartha Engineering College to submit a stability report for the building bearing D.No.4/272-B. The stability certificate has recommended for fully dismantling the building. 7. The learned Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.727 of 2025 also upheld the direction to the municipality to assess the structural stability and soundness of the building in question. The report clears the ambiguity with regard to the structural stability of the building. WP.No.18382 of 2025 8. The building is admittedly constructed about 50 years ago and the first floor walls have collapsed due to prolonged moisture exposure. The first floor has been dismantled and the debris is placed on the existing roof slab which may not be designed for such static loads. The consultant has also observed dense vegetation growth on the roof and roof slab of about one meter has already been dismantled and finally concluded that the building has lost its structural stability and poses a serious risk to occupants and surroundings. 9. The incidents of structurally unsafe buildings collapsing during incessant rains during the monsoon season are not uncommon. Such incidents also resulted in loss of lives and also posed danger to the neighbouring properties. As such, whenever it is brought to the notice of the municipality that a particular building deserves to be demolished, on account of it loosing its structural stability immediate action would have to be taken up by the municipal authorities to safeguard lives. 10. Annexure-1 of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 Rules deals with competence of licensed technical personnel such as Architect, Engineer, Structural Engineer, Supervisor, Town Planner. Form 4 and 5 deal with the licensing of technical person including structural engineers. WP.No.18382 of 2025 11. The 1st respondent in compliance with the directions passed in WP.No.12863 of 2020 and WA.No.727 of 2025 has taken up the process of assessment of the structural stability of the building infrastructure. As such, this Court finds no grounds to interfere in the process. 12. It is for the 1st respondent to forthwith act on the report submitted by the Director, Infrastructure and Consultancy, Siddartha Engineering College to avoid any unfortunate incident which may result in injury or loss of life apart from damage to surrounding properties. At any rate, the petitioners be given a notice of atleast three days before taking up the demolition of the building to enable the petitioners to relocate their belongings/furniture/ movables if any available within the premises. 13. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 23.07.2025. KGM WP.No.18382 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT FPETITION No.18382 OF 2025 Dated 23.07.2025 KGM