APHC010103592021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5831 OF 2021 Between: M/s. Miss India Dress Material Junction, Rep.by its Proprietor S.N.Suleman, D.No.29-15-23, Main Road fort Gate, Rajahmundry, East Godavari. ...Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District. Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation, rep.by Its Commissioner, Rajamahendravarm, East Godavari District. Rambha Mohan, S/o not known to the petitioner R/o. D.No. 29-15-23, Main Road Fort Gate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. Smt R S Lakshmi, W/o. Rambha Mohan R/o. D.No. 29-15-23, Main Road Fort Gate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. Smt P Satyavathi, W/o.Venkata Hah Babu R/o. D.No. 29-15-23, Main Road Fort Gate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...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 issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the Notice in Roc.No.05/2021 dated 01.03.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary violation of Principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and to consequently set-aside the same. lA 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 to direct the 2nd respondent not to demolish the shop bearing Door No. D.No.29- 15-23, Main Road Fort Gate, Rajamahendravram in pursuance of impugned notice dated 1.3.2021 pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI A S C BOSE SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI G V S MEHAR KUMAR The Court made the following order: APHC010103592021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5831/2021 Between: 1.M/S. MISS INDIA DRESS MATERIAL JUNCTION. REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR S.N.SULEMAN, D.NO.29-15-23, MAIN ROAD FORT GATE, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI. ...PETITIONER AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.RAMBHA MOHAN, S/0 NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/0. D.NO. 29-15-23, MAIN ROAD FORT GATE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4.SMT R S LAKSHMI, W/0. RAMBHA MOHAN R/O. D.NO. 29-15-23, MAIN ROAD FORT GATE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5.SMT P SATYAVATHI, W/O.VENKATA HARI BABU R/O. D.NO. 29-15- 23, MAIN ROAD FORT GATE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 A Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VVSATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 2.G VS MEHAR KUMAR 3.GPFORMUNCIPALADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 3 Order; The petitioner is aggrieved by the proposed demolition of the shops from which the petitioner is running a garment business. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are the landlords of the said 2. premises, and the petitioner is a tenant. The petitioner received a notice on 05.10.2020 from the 2"^^^ respondent corporation calling upon the petitioner to stop the repair work and to pull down the building to prevent any danger to the inmates and the public passing by the side of the building. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said notice, duly informing that the building is stable and that there is no immediate hazard to anyone, including the general public. Subsequently, the 2'^^ respondent referred the complaint of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to JNTU Kakinada for submission of a structural stability report. A team of four professors from the Civil Engineering Department submitted their report nd respondent, stating that the building is not safe for living and to the 2 recommending complete dismantling of the building. The learned counsel appearing for the 2'^'^ respondent submits that the petitioner has also submitted a structural stability certificate issued by SVR 3. Consultancy, Engineers, Architects, Valuers & Chartered Engineers Rajamahendravaram, certifying that ‘the building is in good condition.’ On account of these divergent opinions, the 2nd respondent is unable to take a decision. It is further stated in the counter that the structural certificate issued by JNTU Kakinada, whose report would also be taken on record and 4 considered by this Court. The respondents pray for vacating the interim orders. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 submits that the building was constructed about 70 years ago and that any further delay in demolishing it might result in loss of lives as well as damage to the property. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice is challenged on two grounds; that the action has been initiated by the 2'"’^ respondent on receipt of the complaint from the unofficial respondents, and that the unofficial respondents have issued no objection for demolition of the said building. It is also submitted that though a reply was submitted, the impugned proceedings indicate that no reply was submitted by the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned 6. counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Perused the record. The structural stability certificate issued by JNTU Kakinada is dated 04.09.2021 and is almost conclusive since the said certificate was issued by a 8. team of experts, it is also not in dispute that JNTU Kakinada was identified as respondent for issuance of structural nd the competent authority by the 2 stability certificates of any building which is precariously standing, for taking further action to save lives and prevent damage to property. 5 In such circumstances, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned or proposed proceedings for demolishing a building which is certified as in dilapidated condition. Further, delay may also result in further damage apart from loss of lives. Considering the monsoon season, appropriate action shall be taken by the respondent after duly informing the petitioner to vacate the same and remove their movables and other furniture from the shop. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-“M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SEC To, 1 The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation, Rajamahendravarm, East Godavari District. 3. One CC to Sri. V V Satish Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. A S C Bose SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. G V S Mehar Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Municipal admin and Urban dev High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies GSC 9 HIGH COURT DATED:21/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 5831 OF 2021 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS