1 APHC010790402015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2666/2015 Between: Sree Channa Basaveswara Cotton Ginning Factory, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV (TG) 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. MD SALEEM 4. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 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 3rd respondent in issuing impugned notice in B.A. NO.80/2011/G2, dated 17.12.2014 intending to revoke permission accorded vide B.A.No.80/2011/G2, dated 09.2.2011 to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted and Violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned notice in B.A.No.80/2011/G2, dated 17.12.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. At the stage of admission, this Court on 10.02.2015 this Court granted interim order, directing both the parties to maintain status quo existed as on that date and the same is extended until further orders. 4. When the matter is taken up today, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent has furnished a copy of the instructions received from 3rd respondent, dated 02.01.2025, wherein it is stated that the 3rd respondent issued the impugned notice revoking the permission dated 29.01.2011 the ground on verification, it was found that the petitioner factory falls under commercial land use as per the Master Plan of Adoni Municipality whereas permission was obtained to Industrial land use by misleading the department and obtained permission. Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained 3 permission for industrial use, how he started using the same for commercial purpose, therefore, the earlier permission dated 29.01.2011 was revoked by issuing impugned notice dated 17.12.2024. 5. In view of the fact that though the petitioner has obtained building permission for industrial use and he used the same for commercial purpose, the earlier permission granted to the petitioner on 29.01.2011 was revoked by the impugned notice dated 17.12.2014, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit explanation, if any, to the notice dated 17.12.2014 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on submission of such explanation, the respondents are directed to conduct enquiry and proceed in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken as against the petitioner. 6. In view of the same, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit an explanation to the said impugned notice dated 17.12.2014 within a period of two (02) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law by duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) 4 weeks thereafter. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps. 7. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 03.01.2025 KGR