APHC010044132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2540 of 2025 Between: Shaik Parveen Bagum @ Parveen Taj ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P. V. VENKATA RAVI SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN. AND URBAN DEV. 2. V. SIREESHA RANI, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following: 2 VS,J W.P.No.2540 of 2025 ORDER : By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the inaction of the 2nd respondent- Punganur Municipality in considering the representation dated 06.01.2025 submitted by her against the action of the 3rd respondent in trying to demolish southern wall of her house property bearing D.No.22-29 situated at Sulthansab Street, Punganur Town, Chittoor District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development representing respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the above-mentioned house property, having purchased the same from its lawful owner under registered sale deed dated 12.06.2003. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the 3rd respondent, who resides on the southern side of her house, has been trying to demolish the southern wall of her house highhandedly, without having any right and title, and therefore, she has submitted the representation dated 06.01.2025 to the 2nd respondent- Municipality to prevent such illegal activities of the 3rd respondent, but no action is taken thereon till date. 3 VS,J W.P.No.2540 of 2025 4. Today, when the matter came up for admission, Mrs. V. Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Municipality, has furnished a copy of written instructions received from the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent-Municipality, wherein it is stated that after receipt of the petitioner’s representation, the 2nd respondent has issued a notice under Section 228(1)(2) read with Sections 209, 212 and 198 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, on 24.01.2025, to the 3rd respondent directing her to stop the demolition activity and also to submit an explanation as to why action should not be initiated under Section 228(3) of APM Act, as she has commenced the demolition work without obtaining prior permission and without taking precautions and safety measures. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has not submitted any reply to the said notice till date and basing on her reply, the 2nd respondent would take appropriate action by following due process of law. 5. In view of the above instructions, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage, by directing the 2nd respondent- Municipality to take appropriate action in accordance with law, in pursuance of the notice dated 24.01.2025 issued to the 3rd respondent, after duly conducting an enquiry following the procedure prescribed, as expeditiously as possible. 4 VS,J W.P.No.2540 of 2025 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 04.02.2025 IBL 5 VS,J W.P.No.2540 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No. 2540 of 2025 Dt: 04.02.2025 IBL