APHC010377732020 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: 25180/2020 Between: 1. ABDUL KALAM, , S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC- FRUIT JUICE BUSINESS, PREMISES BEARING D.NO.40-321, ABDULLA KHAN ESTATE, GROUND FLOOR, KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KURNOOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, , KURNOOL, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. DEPUTY CITY PLANNER, KURNOOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O M R LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 Order: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in holding out threats of demolition of the shop of the petitioner on the ground floor of Abdulla Khan Estate in Kurnool. The petitioner is running a fruit juice center and has been paying the municipal taxes and has obtained a trade license from the respondent- corporation. 2. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 24.12.2020, directed the respondents not to take any coercive action, including the demolition of the premises bearing No. 40/321-D, Abdulla Khan Estate, ground floor, Kurnool. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has occupied the area meant for parking in the complex and has been obstructing parking. It is also submitted in the counter that although the petitioner was granted a trade license and is paying property tax, this would not preclude action against illegal construction. It is further submitted that on earlier occasions, the municipality has demolished the shop; however, the petitioner has reconstructed it. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-corporation. 5. Perused the record. 3 6. Considering the submissions that the respondent authorities have been resorting to demolition without issuing any prior notice, and that the petitioner is running a fruit juice center in the said shop, where abrupt demolition would cause severe loss to the petitioner, and also considering the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the shop was constructed over an area meant for parking, with LP No. 19/94 earmarking the area where the petitioner is running the shop for parking, this Court directs the respondents to follow the due process of law and grant an opportunity to the petitioner before arriving at a conclusion. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 21.07.2025 PNS