APHC010382662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19383/2025 Between: 1. KANDREGULA JAGANNADHA RAO, S/O. LATE SADHU RAO MALE, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. 9-3-11, GAVARA JAGGAYAPALEM, SANTHIVANIPALEM,PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. KANDREGULA SATYANARAYANA,, S/O. LATE SADHU RAO MALE, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. 9-3-11, GAVARA JAGGAYAPALEM, SANTHIVANIPALEM,PENDURTHI MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, , REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNERVI, ZONE-VI, THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GAJUWAKA ZONE (VI), VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, the action of the respondent No.3 in passing 2 of the final order in RC NO.69/1086/GVMC/UC/2025/ACP-VI/G1, dated 02.04.2025 is without jurisdiction, violation of the principles of natural justice, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 and Rules thereunder and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the endorsement/final order5 in RC NO.69/1086/GVMC/UC/2025/ACP-VI/G1, dated 02.04.2025 and pass 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 direct the Respondent Nos.2 and .3s not to take any coercive step including demolition and dispossession of the building property bearing Door No.9-3/11, of Gavara Jaggayapalemvari Street, Narava Village, Sattivanipalem''area. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam Limits in T.S,/R.S. No. 394/1 & 394/2 by duly suspending the endorsement/final order in RC NO.69/1086/GVMC/UC/2025/ACP-VI/G1, dated 02.04.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 The Court made the following Order: Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 02.04.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the 2nd respondent had confirmed the deviations in the function hall constructed by the petitioners. It is submitted that the impugned proceedings are passed based on a complaint received from third parties, and that the petitioners’ representation for withdrawal of the provisional order dated 17.03.2025 was not considered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are paying commercial tax for the construction, and as such, the petitioners’ representation ought to have been considered. It is submitted that the petitioners intend to regularize the construction and seeks a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned order. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioners have constructed a function hall, and that residents of the area have complained about the nuisance caused by the said commercial activity. It is also submitted that the petitioners obtained permission for the construction of a residential building but have converted it into a commercial building. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, for the 1st respondent as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4 5. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No.8516 of 2025, aggrieved by the action of the respondents therein in threatening to demolish or dispossess the petitioners. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 02.04.2025, duly recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that they would follow the due process of law. 6. In view of the above, this Court finds no grounds to interfere in the present Writ Petition, and it is left open to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the petitioners, in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 28.07.2025 BMS