APHC010095892021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5565/2021 Between: 1. VINTHA GOPI REDDY, S/O. VENKATESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO-26-43-16, SBI COLONY, A.T. AGRAHARAM, 4TH LANE EXTENSION, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, 4TH FLOOR, B-BLOCK, VTPS ROAD, IBRAHIM PATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, 12TH LANE, ARANDALPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 7. THE DISTRICT DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 9. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WEST TRAFFIC, GUNTUR TOWN, NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 10. SINGAREDDY FRANCES REDDY, S/O. SOURI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS., OCC- SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT OF OXFORD ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL, R/O D.NO. 26-43- 17, 2ND LANE, SBI COLONY, A.T.AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 11. SINGAREDDY ARONE REDDY, 5/0. SOURI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS., OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 26-43-17, 2ND LANE, SBI COLONY, A.T.AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 12. THE OXFORD ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL, DOOR.NO. 26- 2 43-17, 2ND LANE, SBI COLONY, A.T.AGRANARAM, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT SRI. SINGAREDDY FRANCES REDDY ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to suspend the proceeding No. BPS/GUN/MO/39/4749515 dated 25.10.2016 of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 suspend the proceeding No. BPS/GUN/MO/39/4749515 dated 25.10.2016 the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 receive the counter copy on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and may pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 leave to the petitioner herein to file Counter Affidavit on behalf of 10th, 11th and 12th Respondents to the writ petition in W.P. No. 5565 of 2021 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2023 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 receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 4. UMA MAHESWARA RAO DASARI 5. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 6. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3 The Court made the following Order: Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of proceedings No.BPS/GUN/MO/39/4749515, dated 25.10.2016, whereby the 2nd respondent has regularized the construction of the 12th respondent school. The 10th respondent has submitted an application for regularization of the building on 26.07.2015 and sought for regularization of the construction, which was completed by deviating from the sanctioned plan. The 10th respondent also paid an amount of Rs.4,19,280/- towards the building penalization scheme which was in force as on the date of the plan. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 10 to 12 and the 7th respondent did not obtain the No Objection Certificate from the petitioner, who is residing beside the 12th respondent-school. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 12th respondent-school could not have been run by the respondents 10 and 11 without the 2nd respondent regularizing the unauthorized construction. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s peace is disturbed on account of the sound pollution emanating from the 12th respondent-school. That apart, the traffic regularization on the road abutting the school and the litter from the school children are causing unwanted nuisance to the petitioner. On these grounds, the petitioner is seeking cancellation of the BPS granted to the 12th respondent-school by the 2nd respondent. 4 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter stating the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings dated 27.11.2013 cancelling the No Objection Certificate for running the school. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the 12th respondent has filed Writ Petition No.26091 of 2015 and this Court granted interim suspension as prayed for. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent has considered the application for regularization of the building constructed by the respondents 10 and 11 in accordance with the prevailing rules and have regularized the structure. It is also submitted that in the counter that the 2nd respondent had issued notice instructing the 12th respondent to remove the sheet arranged at the boundary of house of the petitioner and to arrange the same inside the school premises and also to arrange a mesh within the school premises so that litter cannot be thrown into the property of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the said arrangements were adequately made by the 12th respondent in pursuance of the notice served on the 12th respondent. It is also submitted that there is no provision under law for cancellation of BPS sanctioned to the respondents 10 to 12. 4. The respondents 10 to 12 have filed a separate counter and submitted that the petitioner intends to convert the school into a residential structure, and as such has filed the present Writ Petition. It is also submitted that the 12th respondent has taken up all steps to ensure minimum disturbance is caused to the petitioner. It is also submitted that all steps would have to be taken by the 12th respondent to ensure that no inconvenience is caused to the petitioner. 5 5. The 7th respondent also filed a separate counter and it is submitted that the permission was accorded to the 12th respondent-school after they have submitted all the requisite documents for grant of permission and in so far as the prayer of the petitioner for cancellation of BPS is concerned, it is beyond their scope. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.Ramadas Shenoy vs. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and others1. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any illegal construction in a planned layout would cause undesired difficulties to the occupants of the planned layout. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development; learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and Mr.P.Venkata Sriram Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.D.Uma Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 10 to 12. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue relating to Madras Town Planning Act, 1920, wherein the scheme in residential area could be subject to modification for conversion into commercial area. The specific issue dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court related to an illegal construction of cinema building which affected the right to enjoyment of the property by the persons residing in residential area was concerned. 1 (1974) 2 SCC Page 506 6 10. On the facts of this case, the area where the school is situated or the area where the petitioner is presently living, is evidently not a part of a sanctioned layout where areas are specified for setting up schools, hospitals or community centers. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim any such right for seeking cancellation of building regularization scheme granted by the 2nd respondent. That apart, the 12th respondent is repeatedly taking all steps to minimize the inconvenience caused if any to the petitioner. Any issues may be brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent for remedial measures. 11. On these grounds, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 22.07.2025 BMS