APHC010634872015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 96 of 2015 Bench Sr.No:-29 [3443] The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. P Madhava Rao ...Respondent ********** Advocate for Appellants: Mr. A S C Bose (SC for Municipal Corporations) Advocate for Respondent: - CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 17th November 2025 P C : In the present appeal, by virtue of order, dated 12.02.2015, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that unless and until the construction of the building was completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the question of issuance of Occupancy Certificate would not arise. The order also stated that the pendency of the present matter would not prevent the writ petitioner to complete the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. 2 HCJ & NJS, J W.A. No:96 of 2015 2. On a reading of the impugned judgment and order, it can be seen that it was clearly observed by the learned single Judge that the writ petitioner can only use the premises for residential purposes and if there was any violation of the same, the Corporation can take steps in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants now states that he has received instructions wherein the authorities have informed him that the liberty granted to the writ petitioner to complete the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan was abused and that even when the building permission was with regard to residential premises, currently the writ petitioner was running a school of Nursing in the name of ‘St. Joseph’s School of Nursing’. Not only this, it is stated that even as of today, the Municipal Corporation had not issued any Occupancy Certificate to the said petitioner and that the entire operation of the School of Nursing was unauthorized. It is stated that no action was taken inasmuch as the present appeal proceedings are pending before this Court. It is stated that the applicant cannot use the premises in question for any purpose other than for which the building plan has been granted and in case there has to be a change of user, then the relevant procedure under Sections 452 and 636 of the Municipal Corporation Act has to be followed, which has not been done in the present case. 3 HCJ & NJS, J W.A. No:96 of 2015 4. Be that as it may, we permit the Corporation to take requisite action in accordance with law within six weeks from today after giving to the concerned an opportunity of being heard. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J akn 4 HCJ & NJS, J W.A. No:96 of 2015 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Writ Appeal No: 96 of 2015 DATE : 17.11.2025 AKN 51