1 APHC010237132026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 12588/2026 Between: 1. MATIKANA VENKATARAMANA, S/O LATE M.PYDITHALLI, AGE 65 YEARS, OCC PETTY VENDOR1R/ O D. NO. 15-12, KOPPALA STREET, GAJULAREG A, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM-535001. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 2. THE VIZIANAGARAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT-535002 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B S SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri B.S. Shivaji, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner appearing online, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development and Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Kakinada Municipal Corporation. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned Proceeding dated 17.06.2025 (Ex.P.1). The relevant portion of the said impugned Proceeding is usefully extracted hereunder: “Your application submitted vide reference 2nd cited, has been examined with reference to the A.P. Building Rules, 2017 & its amendments from time to time and rejected for the following reasons. * The building has been approved constructed with permission or unauthorizedly by already leaving the road widening portion any claim for TDR is not allowed.” 3. The above Proceeding would indicate that it is not only a Non-speaking Order but it does not make out any meaning. If the Commissioner is incapable of drafting an Order in proper English, he is at liberty to draft the same in Telugu vernacular, which would be better understandable to the parties also. In any case, the above extract does not make any sense or any meaning besides being a Non-speaking Order. 4. The impugned Order, is therefore, unsustainable in law. The impugned Order dated 17.06.2025 (Ex.P.1) issued by the Commissioner is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the Commissioner (Respondent No.2) to pass a fresh Speaking Order in accordance with law by following the principles of Natural Justice, which includes issuance of advance Notice to the Petitioner, consider his objections before passing the Speaking Order. 5. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 3 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:04.05.2026 Vns