\, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDhrA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Kin- 371 OF 2025 Between: Dr Vukkadala Rupaa, wife of Dr Venkatachala Mahesh, aged about 39 years, Doctor by Profession, NIVA Hospital, #16-15-960/1, Near Sai Baba Temple, Children’s Park Road Ramakrishna Nagar, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Special Chief Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, AP. 1. The Nellore Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Surya Teja IAS., Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The City Planner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Deputy City Planner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 5. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent partly demolishing the top floor by not considering the explanation dated 30.12.2024 against the impugned notice vide NO.12/1034/NLR/UC/20 24 dated 19.11.2024 and Notice.No.12/1034/NLR/UC/2024 dated 14.12.2024 issued by the 4th and 5th respondent herein is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice and also against the true spirit of the Apex Court judgment recently held in suo motu matter In Re vs Directions in matter of demolition of structures as reported in of 2024 SCC Online SC 3291 and also against the scheme of HMC Act and, APMR and UDA Act 2016 and consequently set aside the said notices dated 19.11.2024 and 14.12.2024 and further crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to take action by way of contempt of court against the 3rd respondent in his personal capacity and 2nd respondent in his official capacity and further impose damages to the tune of 50 lakhs against the 3rd respondent for illegal demolition of hospital without considering the explanation and by not following the scheme of HMC Act and, APMR and UDA Act 2016 and further direct to take departmental action against the 2nd and 3rd respondent for willfully and intentionally violating the Apex Court order In Re vs Directions in the matter of demolition of structures lA NO: 1 OF 2025 may in 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 to restrain the 2nd respondent herein for any further demolition of NIVA hospital, D.No.16-15-960, Madhuranagar, Besides Saibaba Temple, Children’s park Road are, Nellore City by permitting the petitioner to cover Nvith the sheets to protect the Air Conditioners and electronic goods on the top floor of the hospital, pending disposal of the above said writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,4&5: SRI A S C BOSE SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following order: APHC010006202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 371/2025 Between: Dr Vukkadala Ruppa ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VSURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- ■ to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in partly demolishing the top floor by not considering the explanation dated 30.12.2024 against the impugned notice vide NO.12/1034/NLR/UC/2024 dated 19.11.2024 and Notice. No. 12/1034/NLR/UC/2024 dated 14.12.2024 issued by the 4th and 5th respondent herein is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to principles of natural justice and also against the true spirit of the Apex Court judgment recently held in suo motu matter In Re vs Directions in demolition of structures as reported in of 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291 and also against the scheme of HMC Act and, APMR and UDA Act 2016 and consequently set aside the said notices dated 19.11.2024 and 14.12.2024 and further crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to take action by way of contempt of court against the 3rd respondent in his personal capacity and 2nd respondent in his official capacity and further impose damages to the tune of 50 lakhs against the 3rd respondent for illegal demolition of hospital without considering the explanation and by not following the scheme of HMC Act and, APMR and UDA Act 2016 and further direct to take departmental action against the 2nd and 3rd respondent for willfully and intentionally violating the Apex Court order In Re vs Directions in the matter of structures and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and to pass • The petitioner and her husband are the absolute owners of the properties having purchased the same from their vendors vide document Nos.4058 of 2013 and 3553 of 2015 dated 20.04.2013 and 22.05.2015 the matter of of demolition 2. respectively. With an intention to construct a dinic/hospital, the petitioner has submitted an application to the 2"'^ respondent municipality on 20.12.2021 and nd respondent has accorded permission through permit accordingly, the 2 NO.1031/1781/B/NMC/CHPRK//2021 and the said construction has to commence before 20.06.2023 and has to be completed by 20.12.2024. The petitioner has completed the said construction as per schedule on 29.05.2024. It is also the case of the petitioner that she has constructed temporary shed above the 4*^ floor of the said building. 3. While the matter being so, notice dated 19.11.2024 was issued to the petitioner under Sections 452(1),(2), 455(1),(2), 461(1),(2) read with 428, 429, 636 of MC Act, 1955 and as per Sections 86, 89(1 &2), 89(3), 90(1) of APMR & UDR Act, 2016, calling for an explanation from the petitioner within seven days for carrying out certain deviations in contravention to the sanctioned plan, for which the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 25.11.2024 informing that the petitioner is ready to comply according to BPS scheme at the earliest and requested to regularize the deviations made by the petitioner. But, the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of submitting the said explanation on 25.11.2024, the 4*^ respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 14.12.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the deviated portion of the approved plan, for which the petitioner has also submitted explanation on 30.12.2024. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents, even without giving time to the petitioner to regularize the said deviations are forcibly taking steps to demolish the said building. Hence the present writ petition is filed. an 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A.S.C. Bose learned Standing Counsel. r 5. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions of the City Planner, Nellore Municipal Commissioner, dated 06.01.2025 wherein it is stated that the petitioner has constructed the hospital consisting of a cellar and an extra floor by duly following all the side setbacks along with ramps constructed on road area portion. It is further stated that the petitioner’s hospital has neither obtained any NOC from the fire department nor have installed any fire equipment and have also not obtained occupancy certificate from the sanctioned authority. After receiving the said two notices dated 19.11.2024 and 14.12.2024, the petitioner and the hospital management have approached the Executive authority on 27.12.2024 and requested for removal of deviations/violations voluntarily by duly vacating the patients in the hospital by themselves within three days in the presence of the authorized person belonging to the respondent’s office. Accordingly, the petitioner herself took up the removal of the deviated portions on 03.01.2025 and simultaneously have approached this Court. It is specifically stated that the 4‘^ respondent’s office have never initiated any demolition process against the petitioner’s building, but, they have only issued notices by duly following the due procedure of building rules in force. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022\ has stated 6. that the Apex Court has framed certain guidelines in cases wherever there are ^ 2024 see Online Se 3291 unauthorized constructions, directing the respondents to issue 15 days notice calling for an explanation and also that the notice shall contain the details regarding: { a. the nature of the unauthorized construction. b. the details of the specific violation and the grounds of demolition. c. a list of documents that the notice is required to furnish along with his reply. d. the notice should also specify the date on which the personal hearing is fixed and the designated authority before whom the hearing will take place; The Apex Court has further held that every municipal/local authority shall assign a designated digital portal, within 3 months wherein 7. details regarding service/passing of the notice, the reply, the show cause notice and the order passed thereon would be available. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon Section 90(A) of the APMR and UD Act, which speaks about the regulation and penalization of buildings constructed without sanctioned plan. He vehemently contended that if the respondents have found any deviations, they are at liberty to penalize the petitioner and on the other hand the petitioner s also entitled for regularization of the same. But, instead of considering the same, the respondent authorities have forced the petitioner to remove the unauthorized constructions on their own, without there being any order in pursuance of the said two impugned notices. In the present case, admittedly, the impugned notice does not specify the extent which was deviated by the petitioner which in fact could be regularized by the respondents and the notice also does not specify the date fixed for personal hearing. Through the said notices, the petitioner was only directed to remove the deviated portions which in fact are not specific as per the judgment of the Apex Court referred supra. 8. 9. As the notices issued to the petitioner are contra to the guidelines St issued by the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in 1 supra, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondentsto issue a fresh notice to the petitioner informing her the relevant documents to be furnished by the petitioner by fixing a date for personal hearing.. Thereafter the respondents are at liberty to initiate further course of action in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject property. 10. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- V SAVITHRI GQWRI ASSISTANT REGI^tRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// 1 To, 1. The Special Chief Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, AP. 2. The Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The City Planner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Deputy City Planner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 5. One CC to Sri. V Surendra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. A S C Bose SC for Municipalities [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.371 of 2025 S 3't JAN 2025 Current Section ^ ^\ Oi DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS