IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKU AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 86 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order in W.P.No.24356 of 2024 dt.28-10-2024 on the file of the High Court.-- Between: 1. P.V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o. Appa Rao, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 5-4-1 MB Kummara Street Opp HDFC Bank Nidadavolu Town, East Godavari District. 2. Sheik Anwar Bhasha, S/o. Late Bhasha, aged about 45 years Occ: Driver, R/o. 5-4-3, Kummmara Street, Ram nagar, Nidadavolu Town, East Godavari District. 3. Sheik Abdul Aziz, S/o. Ismail, aged about 75 years Occ; Retired RTC Driver,R/o 7-3-14 Big Masjid Street, Nidadavolu Town, East Godavari District. ...APPELLANTS AND 1. Neelam Nagendra Prasad, S/o. Naga Raju Aged about 51 years, R/o. Door No 21716/2 Santhinagar, Nidadavole Town East Godavari District. ...WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its PrI Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravati Guntur District. / Sr 3. The Nidadavole Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner Nidadavole East Godavari District. 4. The Town Planning officer. Town Planning Section Nidadavole East Godavari District It is submitted that 1,2 petitioners are residents of Kummara Street and Masijid Street, Nidadolu Town, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 4 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 to suspend the operation of the orders in W.P.No.24356 of 2024 dt 28-10-2024 pending disposal of Main Writ Appeal.^ Counsel for the Appellants : SRI BOKKA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR MUINICIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mrs. V. SIREESHA RANI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY " The Court made the following: JUDGMENT Bench Sr.No:-52 [3446] APHC010022832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 86 of 2025 ...Appellants P.V.V. Satyanarayana and others Vs. ...Respondents Neelam Nagendra Prasad and others ********** Bokka Satyanarayana Kamla Siva Rama Krishna Kolluru - R1 & Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni - R2 & R3 Advocate for Appellants Advocates for Respondents CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 6th February 2025 PC : The present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 28.10.2024, passed in W.P.No.24356 of 2024. The Writ Petition was filed by respondent No.1 in the present 2. appeal challenging the orders passed by the Nidadavole Municipality/R3 on account of certain deviations in the approved building plans which had been submitted by the petitioner. The learned single Judge, by virtue of judgment and order 3. impugned, dated 28.10.2024, came to a conclusion that the confirmation order 2 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.86 of 2025 had been passed by the said Municipality, without considering the explanation, dated 09.09.2024, submitted by the petitioner and without affording any ‘opportunity of being heard’ to the said petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Court proceeded to set aside the impugned confirmation order, dated 17.09.2024, and also remanded back the matter to the Nidadavole Municipality to consider the explanation, dated 09.09.2024 and pass appropriate orders. The learned single Judge also directed the said Municipality not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, pending the consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In the present Writ Appeal, learned counsel for the appellants states that despite the fact that the deviations had been made during the course of construction by the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, the said respondent was continuing to raise construction with impugnity without the Municipality in the least restraining the said respondent in any manner whatsoever. 4. Learned counsel for the Nidadavole Municipality, on the other hand, would submit that the construction was not stopped despite deviations inasmuch as the learned single Judge had directed the said Municipality not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, pending the consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 5. 3 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.86 of 2025 We fail to understand the logic behind the argument raised on behalf of the said Municipality. Nothing would stop the said Municipality from considering the explanation in compliance of the directions issued by the learned single Judge and in any case ‘not to take coercive action’ did not 6. mean that the petitioner/respondent No.1 could have been permitted to raise the construction with impugnity. 7. According to the statement made by learned counsel for the Municipality, final order had already been passed on 23.01.2025 and consequential action, it is stated, would be taken in accordance with law. However, we direct the Nidadavole Municipality to not to permit the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein to raise any further construction in violation of the approved building plan. 8. This order be complied with and enforced in letter and spirit. Any failure by the authorities concerned shall be viewed seriously. 9. This Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban ^ Development Authority, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravati Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Nidadavole Municipality, Nidadavole East Godavari District. The Town Planning officer. Town Planning Section Nidadavole East Godavari District It is submitted that 1, 2 petitioners are residents of Kummara Street and Masijid Street, Nidadolu Town, West Godavari District. One CC to Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Siva Rama Krishna Kolluru, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admn & Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) One CC to Mrs. V. Sireesha Rani, SC for Municipality (OPUC) Three C.D. Copies. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Cnr HIGH COURT CNR DATED:06/02/2025 of 1 S FfeB KTx I . cui'iwii irtscuon /:o JUDGMENT X* WA.No.86 of 2025 'r* ^ 18 FEB 2025 | Current Section ^ 4 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS