IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3517 OF 2025 Between: Sri K. Raghunath, S/o. K. Rangaiah, Aged about 56 years, R/o.D.No.7/1638, ATP Road, Revenue Ward No.7, Gooty, Ananthapur District. A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipality Administration and Urban Development(MA and UD) Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi. 2. Gooty Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Anantapur District, A.P. 3. Town Planning Section, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur District, A.P ...RESPONDENTS 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 pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus questioning the action of respondent No.2 in issuing impugned confirmation order vide Notice No. 07/2024/WPRS09 dated 30.12.2024 received on 21.01.2025, confirming the show- cause notice issued vide Notice No.07/2024/WPRS09 dated 23.12.2024 received on 21.01.2025 and serving both the provisional order and confirmation order collectively and directing the Petitioner herein to bring down the entire building i.e. Commercial shop consisting of (G +2), situated at D.No/Plot No.7/1637, 7/1638, Anantapur Road, Gooty Municipality Area, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District, r reply, without without for submitting petitioner^ premises according any time of the without physical inspection ^ell-reasoned P into rule frame . conducting any passing violation ‘Andhra illegal, in arbitrary order, as Contrary 1965, A.P of the provisions oi Region and 2017’^ or speaking to any natural justice Act, Act. 2016'and A of Metropolitan p Building Rules of principles Pradesh Municipalities Development Authorities of petitioners ranteed under Art. 14, 19 consequently rights gua of India and Mrban besides being set-aside violation of the Constitution (1) is") the sar^^e. circumstances Court may be take any coercivd 151 CPC praying that m the support of the petition . 2 and 3 not to 1ANOl1OF2025 Petition under Section the High affidavit filed the respondents that of demolition stated in the pleased to direct including No s Commercial shop 7/1638, Anantapur Gootyi of petitioner No/Plot No.7/1637 Municipality measures consisting Road, Ananthapur ituated at D. Limits, of (G+2), s Municipality Gooty Area Gooty ( District, A.P- VISWANATH NAIDU for municipal and urban . SIREESHA RANI SC FOR ; SRI Nl- ^ N0.1-. CP administration Nos.2 & 3; M/s VALLABHANENl counsel for the petitioner the Respondent development e Counsel for m municipalities the Respondent Counsel for :ORDER made the following li The Court PR cai rec ^tioi )e e D.N ^ea, 1 APHC010061872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3517/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Sri. K.Raghunath AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M KVISWANATH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: to pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus questioning the action of respondent No.2 in issuing impugned confirmation order vide Notice No.07/2024AAfPRS09 dated 30.12.2024 received on 21.01.2025, confirming the show cause notice issued vide Notice No.07/2024A/\/PRS09 dated 23.12.2024 received on 21.01.2025 and serving both the provisional order and confirmation order coilectively and directing the petitioner herein to bring down the entire buiiding ‘Commercial shop' consisting of Ground^ 2 situated at D.No/Plot No.7/1637, 7/1638, Anantapur Road, Gooty Municipaiity Area, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District, A.P. into ruie frame, without according any time for submitting reply, without conducting any physicai inspection of the Petitioner’s premises, without passing any speaking or well-reasoned order, as arbitrary, iiiegai, in vioiation of principies of natural justice, contrary to the of ‘Andhra Pradesh Municipaiities Act 1965, A.P. Metropoiitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 and A.P. Building Rules, 2017 besides being violation of petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Art. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same " i.e.. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. a) The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property which consists a building in an extent of 210.97 sq.yards situated at D.No/Plot No.7/1635, 7/1636, 7/1637, 7/1638 at Ananthapur Road, Gooty Municipality Area, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananathapur District having purchased same from its lawful owner through sale deed No.913 of 2010. b) The petitioner with an intention to construct a commercial shop in the said property, demolished the said building and made an application to the 2 respondent Municipality on 18.01.2021 for grant of permission for nd 3 nd construction of commercial shop consisting of Ground + two floors. The 2 respondent vide Permit No.1156/0002/B/GYMC/ATPR/2021, dated 24.06.2021 granted permission for construction of commercial shop. Accordingly, the petitioner has constructed the commercial building strictly in accordance with the approved building plan and running Pharmacy and Gold Loan Bank in the subject property. c) While the matter being so, Provisional Order Notice dated 23.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner directing him to stop further construction forthwith and show sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation construction should not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, further action will be taken as per law. The said Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 was served on the petitioner on 21.01.2025 along with Confirmation Order dated 30.12.2024, wherein the petitioner was directed to bring down the unauthorized construction within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. d) The Confirmation Order is under challenge on the ground that before passing the said Confirmation Order, the 2""^ respondent failed to conduct any enquiry by giving a notice to the petitioner and also affording an opportunity of hearing to him. 4 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Corporation for respondent No.1 and Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has furnished a copy of instructions of the Commissioner, Gooty Municipality, wherein it is stated that the then Commissioner, Gooty previously issued Provisional Order Notice dated 4. 23.12.2022 under Sections 217, 228(1) & 228(2) of A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 to the petitioner directing him to stop further construction forthwith and show sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation constructions should not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which, it will be treated as a continuous and intentional offence and further action will be taken as per the provisions laid down under Sections 217, 218(3) of APM Act 1965. As the petitioner neither followed the directions mentioned in the Provisional Notice nor submitted sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation constructions should not be removed. Therefore, the impugned Confirmation Order was passed. 5. It is further stated that all the building owners including the petitioner have submitted a representation on 27.01.2025 in pursuance of the notices served on them requesting to grant time to furnish the details as per the notices, to secure relevant documents so as to submit a detailed reply and also to give an opportunity for personal hearing. However, the said representations were rejected by the 2'"'' respondent on 04.02.2025 on the 5 ground the petitioner has failed to submit an explanation to the provisional notice as well as failed to attend for personal hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the 6. petitioner was rejected on 04.02.2025 which infact was not served upon the petitioner as on the time of filing of the present writ petition. As such they could not challenge the rejection order. However, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner either to submit an explanation or to submit the relevant documents to prove his title over the said property, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to permit the petitioner to submit explanation in pursuance of the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 which was served on the petitioner on 21.01.2025. 7. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, it can be understood that the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 was served on the petitioner on 21.01.2025 along with the Confirmation Order dated 30.12.2024. It is also an admitted fact that if at all, the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 was served on the petitioner prior to the service of Confirmation Order, the petitioner ought to have got an opportunity to submit explanation to the said Provisional Notice, But in the present case, as both the notices were served on the same day i.e., on 21.01.2025, the petitioner could not get an opportunity to submit explanation to the said Provisional Notice. 8. Therefore, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by giving an opportunity to the 6 petitioner to submit explanation to the said Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim to the above said Provisional Order dated 23.12.2024. On receipt of the same, the 2'"'^ respondent is directed to proceed with the necessary enquiry in pursuance of the above said Provisional Order dated 23.12.2024 by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and upon verification of the records and the subject building, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall not be any coercive steps. 9. In view of the same, the Confirmation Order Notice dated 30.12.2024 is set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR r ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipality Administration and Urban Development(MA and UD), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi. 2. The Commissioner, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur District, A.P. 3. Town Planning Section, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur District, A.P 4. One CC to Sri M. K. Viswanath Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, SC for Municipalities [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. , n> HIGH COURT DATED: 11/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3517 of 2025 2 I MAK 2025 Current Section . f/a: W VM "v DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS