APHC010040502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2254/2025 Between: Hari Rama Kameswara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “…to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in taking steps to consider the complaint of the petitioners with regard to the illegal and unauthorized construction undertaken by the 4th respondent at D.No.22-5-12/1, Veerabhadrapuram, Ward No.37, Rajamahendravaram in spite of repeated intimation of the illegal acts by the 4th respondents in constructing the building vide complaint dt.28.11.2024, 19.11.2024 and 23.12.2024 as illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to stop the illegal, unauthorized constructions undertaken by the 4th respondent forthwith…” 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation, has furnished a copy of proceedings of respondent No.3 vide Notice No:01/73Sec/Ward.37/2025/Circle8, dated 01.02.2025, wherein it is stated that, in pursuance of the complaint received from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has already issued a provisional notice dated 19.11.2024, under Section 452(1) & 461(1) of APMC Act, 1955 and 86, 89(1&2) of APMR & UDA Act, 2016 on the unofficial respondent herein, calling for an explanation as to why the portion of deviation/violation construction should not be pulled down. For which, the 4th respondent has submitted a reply. But however, as the same was not satisfactory, the confirmation notice dated 01.02.2025 under Section 452(2) & 461(2) of APMC Act, 1955 and 86, 89(3) of APMR & UDA Act, 2016 was issued instructing him to bring down the construction into the rule frame within seven (7) days from the date of the receipt of the notice. 3. As action has already been initiated by the 3rd respondent, in pursuance of the complaint made by the petitioners on 28.11.2024, 19.11.2024 and 23.12.2024, the 3rd respondent is directed to proceed further in accordance with law, after duly conducting physical enquiry, as to whether the 4th respondent has deviated with the sanctioned plan. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 03.02.2025 JLV 92 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.2254 of 2025 Dt.03.02.2025 JLV