APHC010535542024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 977 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-14 [3443] Trust Association of CBCNC ...Appellant Vs. M/s. Janet Property Developers Private Limited and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Sri Patanjali Pamidighantam Advocate for Respondents : Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri V. V. Ravi Prasad, Smt S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader, Sri A. S. C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 17th November 2025 P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.8235 of 2022. 2. The writ petition was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 18 herein challenging the stop work order dated 28.08.2021 issued by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (G.V.M.C.) The stop work order was issued alleging that the building permission had been obtained by respondent Nos.1 to 18 herein online by suppressing facts. The suppression of facts was allegedly in regard to the pending dispute with regard to the title of the said property. An 2 explanation to the said stop work order it is stated has since been filed by all the respondents on which an order yet has to be passed by the G.V.M.C. However, before the authority could proceed to pass an order, respondent Nos.1 to 18 herein chose to prefer the writ petition, which came to be disposed of on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as on the date of application filed before the G.V.M.C., there were no cases pending in regard to the title of the property in question, which learned counsel for the appellant states is the property of the appellant Society. Needless to say that the writ petition came to be disposed of without inviting any objections from the G.V.M.C. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that even when the appellant is a necessary party, the petitioners had deliberately chosen not to incorporate the same as party respondent in the writ petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, there is no dispute that the authority which passed the order dated 28.08.2021 for stoppage of work was in accordance with the powers vested in the said authority in terms of Section 450 of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”). 5. Considering the fact that the explanations have also been filed by all the respondent Nos.1 to 18 herein, who were petitioners, it would only be appropriate to allow the authority to pass a speaking order after consideration of the material on record. We permit the appellant to place the relevant 3 material, if any, which would enable the authority to take a considered opinion in the matter. 6. In our opinion, the judgment and order impugned passed by the learned single Judge is unsustainable, as it prevented the statutory authority from exercising its powers under the Act, and the same are set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, including I.A.No.2 of 2025 – implead petition shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J AMD 4 04 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT APPEAL NO: 977 of 2024 Dt:17.11.2025 AMD