IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28934 OF 2024 Between: 1. M/s. HRR Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore, represented by its Managing Director Sri H.N, Raghavendra s/o Late Sri H.B. Naraya swamy, 2. M/s. Ramshil Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore, represented by its Director, Sri H.N. Raghavendra s/o Late Sri H.B.Narayanaswamy, 3. M/s. Shimani Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore, represented by its Director, Sri H.N. Raghavendra s/o Late Sri H.B.Narayanaswamy, Hindu, aged about 65 years. 4. M/s. Fineshine Developers Private Limited, Bangalore, represented by its Director, Sri H N Raghavendra s/o Late Sri H.B.Narayanaswamy, 5. M/s. H.R.S Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore represented by its Director, Sri H.N.Raghavendra s/o Late Sri H.B.Narayanaswamy, na- 6. M/s. Aniragh Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore, represented by its Director, Sri H.N.Raghavendra s/o Late Sri H.B.Narayanaswamy, 7. M/s. H.B.J. Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore, represented by its Director, Sri H.N. Raghavendra s/o Late Sri H.B.Narayanaswamy, 8. M/s. Soudamani Constructions Private Limited Bangalore, represented by its Director, Sri H.N Raghavendra, s/o Late Sri H.B.N arayanaswamy -M 9. M/s. Jaishil,Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore, represented by its Director, Sri H.N. Raghavendra s/o Late Sri H.B.Narayanaswamy, 10. M/s. H.N.P Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore, represented by its Director, Sri H.N.Raghavendra s/o Late Sri H.B.Narayanaswamy, 11. M/s. Seema Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore, represented by its Director, Sri H.N. Raghavendra s/o Late Sri H.B.Narayanaswamy, 12. M/s. Tyagaraj Constructions Private Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its Director, Sri.H.Ratnakar Tyagaraj, 13. M/s. Janet Property Developers Private Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its Director, Smt. J. MaliniTyagaraj, 14. M/s. Sunita Estate Private Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its Director,Sri. T C Karunakar, 15. M/s. Jyotshna Estates Private Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its Director, Smt. Jyotshna Christiana, 16. M/s. Christiana Constructions Private Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its Director, Smt. Jyotshna Christiana, 17. M/s. Dinakar Constructions Private Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its Director, Sri. Dinakar Tyagaraj, 18. M/s. Chintakunta Constructions Private Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its Director, Sri. Ch.Madhu- sudana Rao, (All the above Petitioner/Respondents 4 to 21 Companies Registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and represented by their General Power of Attorney holder, Dinakar Thyagaraj, s/o. H.R. Thyagaraj, aged 50 years, resident of# 7-237, Plot No 39, KCP Colony, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.) ..Petitioner/s AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by the Principal Secretary, MuninicapI Administration & Ubran Develop ment, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur Dist. 2. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation reptd., by its Commissioner, having Office at Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction, 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 be pleased to issue an order, direction or a writ. may more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents more particularly that of the 2nd respondent in not completing the post verification of the revised Building 1086/3302/B/Z3/KTA/2021 dated 30/04/2023 and issuing the final approval of the revised plan despite the petitioners complying all the statutory norms and making good of the shortfalls pointed vindictive, motivated and Plan vide by BA No. out as illegal, oppressive. a mere colourable exercise of power, apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue the final approval of the revised plan in BA No. 1086/3302/B/Z3/KTA/2021 dated 30/04/2023 such, earliest time that the Hon'ble court deems fit and within proper to stipulate. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the 2nd respondent to conduct the in revised plan in BA No. 1086/3302/B/Z3/KTA/2021 dated 30/04/2023. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.S.MURTHY SENIOR COUNSEL SRI V.V.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C.BOSE SC FOR CORPORATION post verification process FOR & MUNICIPAL The Court made the following order: ▼ 1 APHC010556342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] ■ I % THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28934/2024 Between: M/s. HRR Constructions Private Limited, and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VVRAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following: 7^ 2 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “....to issue an order, direction or a writ, more particuiariy one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, deciaring the inaction of the respondents more particuiariy that of the 2"'* respondent in not completing the post verification of the revised Building Plan vide by BA No. 1086/3302/B/Z3/KTA/2021 dated 30/04/2023 and issuing the final approval of the revised plan despite the petitioners complying all the statutory norms and making good of the shortfalls pointed out as illegal, oppressive, vindictive, motivated and a mere colourable exercise of power, apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and consequently direct the 2"“^ respondent to issue the final approval of the revised plan in B.A.No.1086/3302/B/Z3/KT/M2021 dated 30/04/2023 within such earliest time ” The grievance of the petitioners is that, in pursuant to the notice issued by the 2'"'^ respondent vide letter No.SWO/1086/2024/1314, dated 13.08.2024, the petitioner submitted a representation on 17.09.2024 to the 2'^'^ respondent herein, requesting the completion of the post-verification of the revised 2. Building Plan vide BA No. 1086/3302/B/Z3/KTA/2021, dated 30.04.2023, and issuance of the final approval for the revised plan, despite the petitioners having complied with all the statutory norms and rectified the shortfalls pointed out. However, as no orders have been passed on the said representation, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for 1®‘ respondent and learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation for 2'^'^ respondentNo.2. 3. 3 for the respondent will consider the During hearing, learned counsel appearing the respondent authorities submitted by the petitioner, dated 17.09.2024, and will pass 4. authorities submits that representation appropriate orders in accordance with law. of the case, the the facts and circumstances Having regard to 5. made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents, and in the representation made by petitioners submissions is pending for into the merits of the of the Writ Petition by directing of the fact that view nd respondent, instead of going consideration before the 2 case , this Court feels it appropriate to dispose Visakhapatnam Municipal respondent No.2-Commissioner, The Greater , to consider the representation made by the Corporation, Visakhapatnam dated 17.09.2024 and pass appropriate orders, if not yet passed, in four (04) weeks from the date of petitioners accordance with law, within a period of receipt of a copy of this order, the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be 6. With no order as to costs. As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any Petition, shall stand closed. in this Writ Sd/- M SRINiVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur Dist. 1. 2. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, having Office at Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam. 3. One CC to Sri. V V Ravi Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. AS C Bose SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC 5. Two CCs to GP Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.28934 of 2024 ANDH^ X 2 1 JAN 20?5 Co O ^ ^ . Current iieciion ^esPATC'^s^ DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS