APHC010019322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 1028/2025 Between: D.g.abdulAjeez, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2. Challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 30.12.2024 directing the petitioner to bringing down, within seven (7) days, the constructions made in Sy.No.45, Hasnabad, Hindupur, the present writ petition is filed. 3. It is contended by the petitioners that prior to passing of the impugned order, a notice was issued by the Municipality on 18.12.2024 under 2 Section 228 (1) & (2) r/w Sections 209 and 212 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act,1965, and Section 89 (1) & (2) r/w Section 82, 90(1) of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (Act 5 of 2016). In reply to the same, the petitioners through his counsel submitted explanation through Registered Post on 24.12.2024, the same was received by the Municipality, however the said explanation was not considered, by the respondents while passing the impugned order confirming the show cause notice dated 18.12.2024. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on instructions would submit that there is a civil litigation pending between the petitioner and the Municipality in O.S.No.110 of 2024, and a show cause notice was issued by the Municipality before passing of the impugned proceedings to bring down the unauthorized construction in accordance with law, thus prays for dismissal of the writ petition . 5. Considered the rival submissions. 6. It is evident that the explanation said to have been submitted by the petitioner through his counsel on 24.12.2024, was not referred to while passing the impugned order. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order impugned, is required to be set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass orders afresh pursuant to the provisional/show cause notice dated 18.12.2024 after considering the objections of the petitioner dated 24.12.2024 that were submitted through his counsel. Needless to observe that the petitioners must be given an 3 opportunity of personal hearing in the matter. Till passing of such orders, the respondents shall not carry out any further demolitions in respect of the subject property. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:10.01.2025 ANI 4 202 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.1028 of 2025 Date:10.01.2025 ANI