I ' APHC010369722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0E0 0 THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18847 OF 2025 Between: 1. Shaik Ghouse Basha, S/o. Shaik Imam Hussain, Aged about 35 years, R/o. B/23, Chowdamma Street, Badvel Town, YSR Kadapa District. 2. V.Subbalakshumamma, W/o. Sriramulu Reddy, Aged 50 years, R/o. 5/78, Gandia Street, Badvel Town, YSR Kadapa District. 3. K.Chandra Mohan, S/o. Santaiah, Aged about 52 years, R/o. 11/1/156, Gandia Street, Badvel Town, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. Badvel Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District. ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 2"^ respondent in Roc.No.858/G 1/2025 dt. 10.07.2025 directing the petitioners to vacate their shops voluntarily within 15 days otherwise the same would be done departmentally without considering the petitioners letter dt.01.07.2025 and also material on record handed, mala fide, consequently set-aside the as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminative, high selectively and on extraneous considerations and order passed by the 2ndrespondent in Roc.No.858/G 1/2025 dt. 10.07.2025 with further direction not to demolish the tin sheet shops on Porumamilla road near four roads junction Badvel, YSR Kadapa district of the petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the 2"^^ respondent in Roc.No.858/G 1/2025 dt. 10.07.2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI L. J. VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI G. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following order: APHC010369722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0E0 [3457] 0 THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18847/2025 Between: 1.SHAIK GHOUSE BASHA, S/0 SHAIK IMAM HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O B/23, CHOWDAMMA STREET, BADVEL TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2.V.SUBBALAKSHUMAMMA,, W/0. SRIRAMULU REDDY AGED 50 YEARS, R/O 5/78, GANDLA STREET, BADVEL TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3.K.CHANDRA MOHAN, S/0 SANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O 11/1/156, GANDLA STREET, BADVEL TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. I ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BADVEL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. URBAN DEVELOPMENT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.LJVEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following: r ORDER:- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the notice dated 29.05.2025, which was issued in the name of the 1®' petitioner’s grand-father, who was running a shop in a tin shed abutting the road. It is further submitted that the petitioners had filed W.P.No. 14304 of 2025, aggrieved by the show cause notice. The 2"^ respondent has issued the said notice, calling upon the petitioners to vacate the premises. The petitioners submitted their reply on 06.06.2025 and pending consideration of the reply, it is apprehended that the 2"^^ respondent would evict the petitioners from the shops, irrespective of the number of years they had been running business. It is also submitted that this Court disposed off the Writ Petition, directing the respondent authority to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing final orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioners. 2. on It is submitted that the petitioners after receipt of notice from the 2"^^ respondent, they sought 20 days time to appear in person, as the entire documents relating to the shops were with their counsel, who appeared for them in W.P.No.14304 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that unmindful of the representation made by the petitioners, the 2"^ respondent passed orders dated 10.07.2025, calling upon the petitioners to vacate the subject site voluntarily within 15 days, failing which further action would be initiated from the 2'^^ respondent’s side. 3. 3 The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^^ respondent submits 4. that the area in which the petitioners are conducting their business falls under a no-vending zone and that they have been in occupation of municipal land which is abutting the road. It is.further submitted that the 2'^'^ respondent has given ample opportunity to the petitioners to submit their explanation and the 2"^^ respondent has passed a well-reasoned order, duly taking into account the submissions of the petitioners and also extending the opportunity of hearing. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2'"^ respondent. 5. 6. Perused the record. 7. The impugned order dated 10.07.2025 has not considered the representation of the petitioners dated 01.07.2025. Apart from that, the show cause notice was issued to the 1®^ petitioner’s grand-father, who is no more and on such show cause notice, final orders could not have been passed. Insofar as, the submission of the learned Standing Counsel with regard to no vending zone, it is the responsibility of the 2”^^ respondent to identify and allocate appropriate areas where petty vendors can set up their business and eking out their livelihood. 8. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings, by directing the 2"'^ respondent to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a fresh reasoned order. Till then, there shall be no coercive steps taken against the petitioners. .5^ 9- Accordingly, this Writ Petition i as to costs. IS disposed off. There shall be no order As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR f/V To, SECTION OFFICER 1- The Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, State of Andhra Pradesh District. and Urban Development Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur 2. The Commissioner, Badvel Municipality, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District. Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Municipal Admn And Urban 3. One CC to Sri L. J. Veera 4. Two CCs to GP for Development, High Court of A.P. [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana 6. Two CD Copies SC for Municipality (OPUC) Cnr ■ HIGH COURT DATED:24/07/2025 S 0 I SEP P025 3 Curwnl Section , *'S^2fATC»®,5<^ ORDER WP NO. 18847 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS