APHC010711222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 36432/2025 Between: 1. CH BHASKAR RAO, S/O. ROSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O. ATKURU ROAD, G.KONDURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL NTR DISTRICT. 521229. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APCRDA, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SEED AXIS ROAD, E 3- NIL JUNCTION, RAYAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522503, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING ASSISTANT APCRDA, SEED AXIS ROAD, E 3- NIL JUNCTION, RAYAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522503, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. G KONDURU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS PANCHAYATI SECRETARY, G KONDURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT-521229. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents under impugned confirmation order bearing File NO.MAU61- DP0NUZ(UAC)/6/2025-DP dt.22-12-2025 issued under Sec. 115 (1) (2) and (3) r/w Sec.108,109 and 110 of AP Capital Region Development Authority Act 2014 (Act No.11 of 2014) is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Sec.115 (2) of Act 11 of 2014 apart from violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of removal / demolition of shed in RS.No.182 Atkuru Road G.Konduru Village and Mandal, NTR District, pursuance to the impugned confirmation Order dt:22-12-2025, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.36432 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents under impugned confirmation order bearing File No.MAU61-DP0NUZ(UAC)/6/2025-DP dt.22-12-2025 issued under Sec.115 (1) (2) and (3) r/w Sec.108,109 and 110 of AP Capital Region Development Authority Act 2014 (Act No.11 of 2014) is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Sec.115 (2) of Act 11 of 2014 apart from violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. The short grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued provisional order dated 28.11.2025. Upon receipt of the said order, the petitioner submitted an explanation/reply dated 04.12.2025. However, without considering the said explanation/reply, respondents issued confirmation order dated 22.12.2025. As the said action violates the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ram Dheeraj, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of S.Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for APCRDA for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. 4 4. The learned Standing Counsel for APCRDA fairly stated that respondent Nos.2 has not considered the explanation dated 04.12.2025 offered by the petitioner before delivering the impugned order and implored that the order impugned be set aside and remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. 5. On careful reviewing the order impugned, the order does not indicate that the explanation dated 04.12.2025, offered by the petitioner, was considered. 5. Under this circumstance, the present Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders, after considering the explanation dated 04.12.2025, offered by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. Till then, the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps against the impugned notice property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 30.12.2025 KBN 5 12 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.36432 of 2025 Date: 30.12.2025 KBN