APHC010448382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22768/2025 Between: Satti Siva Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. R K ACARYULU SC For RJY,KKD,ELR,AMP UDA 3. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 4. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the issuance of impugned notice dated 25.08.2025 by the 4th respondent directing the petitioners to remove the constructions made in subject building, without considering the petitioner’s representations dated 05.09.2024 & 06.09.2024 as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.17282 of 2024, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K.P.S.Sailesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for MPP, ZPP & Gram Panchayat, Sri RK Acharyulu, learned Standing counsel for RUDA and Smt Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat. 3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the Building bearing D.No.5-213 situated at Bodavari Street, Beside Railway Station, Anaparthi, East Godavari District and obtained building permission from the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 14.11.2019. (b) He further submitted that, earlier, when the respondent authorities have issued final notice dated 02.08.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction/deviated portion of the construction from the sanctioned plan, since the petitioner did not get regularization for the said additional construction made in deviation to the original sanctioned plan, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.17282 of 2024 wherein this Court has passed orders dated 07.08.2024 permitting the petitioner to submit an explanation to the notice dated 02.08.2024 and an application seeking regularization of said deviated portion and further directed the respondents to consider the same by following the procedure contemplated under law. (c) He further submitted that pursuant to the above said orders dated 07.08.2024, the petitioner had made an application seeking regularization dated 05.09.2024 and submitted a detailed explanation dated 06.09.2024 to the said notice dated 02.08.2024 specifically requesting the 4th respondent to provide opportunity of personal hearing as per the directions of this Court. He further submitted that, despite the same, the 4th respondent issued impugned demolition notice dated 25.08.2025 thereby directed the petitioner to remove the constructions made in the subject building within 4 days, that too without issuing prior show cause notices seeking explanation and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He further submitted that, the impugned proceedings though styled as notice, virtually it is a direction given to the petitioner to remove the constructions by giving four days time, failing which they would take steps against the construction. (d) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when this court has specifically given a direction to the respondents in W.P.No.17282 of 2024, without adhering to such direction, the respondent authorities, in a mechanical manner, had issued the impugned demolition notice. The said action of the respondents had not only caused mental agony to the petitioner but also incurred heavy expenditure for knocking the doors of this Court. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat contended that the authorities have rightly issued the impugned notices to the petitioner. There is neither illegality nor procedural impropriety on the part of the respondents and in case, if this Court inclines to interfere with the said impugned notice/proceedings, liberty may be given to the concerned authority to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. A bare reading of the impugned notice/proceedings dated 25.08.2025 shows that it does not contain anything about prior issuance of any show- cause notice to the petitioner seeking their explanation. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. 7. Therefore, in view of the above, issuing the impugned notice with such a direction, without issuing any prior show-cause notice and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, is un-sustainable under law. As such, the impugned notice is ex-facie illegal, unsustainable and was issued in clear violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 8. Moreover, this Court, in W.P.No.17282 of 2024 has specifically given a direction to the respondents as follows: “On receipt of said explanation and application from the petitioner, the respondent No.3(Panchayat Secretary) shall proceed with the necessary enquiry pursuant to the above said Reminder Notice, dated 02.08.2024 by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and the objectors, if any, and upon verification of the records and the subject building construction appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits on the above said explanation and the application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) months thereafter. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall not be any coercive steps and there shall not be any further construction.” Inspite of the said directions, the Panchayat Secretary has not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 06.09.2024(pursuant to the said order) nor conducted necessary enquiry while issuing the impugned demolition notice dated 25.08.2024. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to impose Rs.2000/- towards costs to the Panchayat Secretary concerned. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i. The impugned notice dated 25.08.2025 is hereby set aside. However, this order does not preclude the concerned authority to take steps in accordance with law, by issuing proper show-cause notice/ inviting explanation and providing an opportunity of personal hearing and to pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the concerned parties. ii. The Panchayat Secretary concerned is directed to pay costs of Rs.2000/- to the petitioner from his own pockets within a period of two(02) weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS