1 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1123_2025 APHC010527662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1123 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-4 [3552] Mr. Yousuf Khan ...Appellant Vs. Mohammed Ameen and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. S Lakshminarayana Reddy Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. M. Krishna Rao for R.1 & R.2 Mr. Shaik Khaja Basha for R.3 GP for Social Welfare for R.4, CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 3rd November, 2025 P C : The writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 07.01.2025 passed in WP.No.32257 of 2022. 2. W.P.No.32257 of 2022 was filed highlighting the factum of the failure on the part of the official respondents in not considering the representations filed by the petitioners for stopping the illegal construction in Chanda Mosque with shopping complex at GT Road, Srikakulam District. 2 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1123_2025 3. By virtue of an interim order, dated 30.09.2022, the learned single Judge directed the official respondents therein to ensure that no illegal constructions were taken up on the said Mosque. Subsequently when the matter came up before the learned single Judge on 07.01.2025, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the interim directions earlier granted on 30.09.2022. 4. On a perusal of the order impugned in the present writ appeal, it can be seen that while the learned single Judge has prohibited the appellant from raising any construction which would be termed as illegal, it does not totally ban the appellant from raising construction if it is otherwise authorized. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order impugned was being misinterpreted by the municipal authorities and were preventing the appellant from raising the construction even when the plans have been approved by the municipal authorities. 6. If that be so, then certainly there would be no impediment in the appellant raising the construction provided the construction which is proposed to be raised by the appellant is strictly in conformity with the approved plans. 7. We, therefore, further clarify the order, dated 07.01.2025, that the Municipal Commissioner, Srikakulam shall ensure that the construction which is proposed to be raised by the appellant should be permitted strictly in accordance with the approved building plan and in case there is any violation 3 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1123_2025 of the approved plan, then strict action be taken in accordance with the Rules on the subject irrespective of the fact that the construction is being raised by a religious body or a group. 6. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl