APHC010152452026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 9397/2026 Between: 1. PAGADALA NAGESWARAIAH, S/O. CHINNA NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 28-796A, N.G.O. COLONY, NANDYAL TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522237 2. NANDYAL MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NANDYAL DISTRICT.-518501 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, NANDYAL MUNICIPALITY, NANDYAL DISTRICT-518501 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y NARAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2 The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Y. Narapa Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Srinu Babu learned Assistant Government Pleader for MAUD and Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Rejection of the Application submitted by the Writ Petitioner seeking approval of the Building Plan. 3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has submitted that an Application for Approval of the Building Plan was filed on 08.07.2025 (Ex.P.2). 4. Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, would submit that if the Application for the Building Plan is rejected vide Endorsement dated 17.11.2025 (Ex.P.1), the Statutory Remedy available to such Person is by way of filing an Appeal within 30 days before the Appellate Committee, as per Clause (g) of Rule 21(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017. 5. This Court has perused Clause (g) of Rule 21(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017. 6. Having perused the same, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition is misconceived, inasmuch as the Petitioner ought to have challenged the Rejection of the Building Plan made by the Respondents through Endorsement dated 17.11.2025 before the Appellate Committee. 7. However, since the limitation prescribed is 30 days to prefer an Appeal, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the said period of limitation by a further period of 20 days from the date of uploading of this Order on the website of this Court. 8. The Writ Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Appellate Committee. 3 9. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 09.04.2026 DSV 4 201 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 9397/2026 09.04.2026 DSV 5 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. WRIT PETITION NO: 9397/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 1. 09.04.2026 GRKP, J Writ Petition is disposed of. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 6