APHC010031732026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 2004/2026 Between: 1. AKSHAYA FILING STATION, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI PREGADA AJAY KUMAR, S/O P. ADI SUDARSAN SUNDAR RAO, R/O MAIN BAZAR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SRI PREGADA AJAY KUMAR,, S/O P. ADI SUDARSAN SUNDAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O MAIN BAZAR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. PREGADA ARUNA,, W/O PREGADA AJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O MAIN BAZAR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (APCRDA), APCRDA PROJECT OFFICE, RAYAPUDI POST, TULLURU MANDAL, AMARAVATI, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING ASSISTANT, APCRDA, AMARAVATI. NJS,J W.P No.2004 of 2026 2 4. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PEDAPARIMI GRAM PANCHAYAT, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioners: 1. KALAKOTI SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV NJS,J W.P No.2004 of 2026 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard Mr. Y N Vivekananda, learned arguing counsel representing the petitioners. Also heard Smt. S Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for CRDA representing respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the Confirmation Order dated 12.01.2026 passed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they have established a Petroleum Retail Outlet after obtaining the requisite permissions from the HPCL and constructed a petrol bunk by obtaining building permission from the respondent No.2. Alleging that the construction of the petrol bunk was without final approval, a Provisional Order dated 14.11.2025 was passed calling upon the petitioners to comply with the shortfalls and to show cause as to why the unauthorized development should not be removed, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that to the said notice dated 14.11.2025, the petitioners submitted a detailed explanation on 29.11.2025 and without considering the explanation, the impugned Confirmation Order dated 12.01.2026 was passed. He submits that the order under challenge is cryptic and lacking in specific reasons as to why the explanation of the petitioners is not accepted. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks appropriate directions by allowing the writ petition. NJS,J W.P No.2004 of 2026 4 5. On the other hand, Smt. S Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel made submissions to sustain the impugned order contending that as the petitioners failed to comply with the shortfalls, the respondent No.3 is justified in passing the Confirmation Order. 6. Considered the submissions made and perused the Confirmation Order dated 12.01.2026. 7. Admittedly to the Provisional Order dated 14.11.2025, the petitioners submitted explanation on 29.11.2025 (Ex.P3). The shortfalls pointed out by CRDA were answered. As to whether the same are acceptable or not, is to be considered and if at all, they are not acceptable, the respondent No.3 is required to give specific reasons. 8. It is a settled position in law that the Authorities concerned are required to state reasons while accepting or rejecting the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties to a proceeding / lis. The reasons are the heart and soul of an order and in the absence of reasons the aggrieved party cannot be expected to raise grounds much less legal contentions before appropriate forum. 9. In Basudev Dutta vs. The State of West Bengal 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating the legal position at paragraph 12.2 and 12.6 held as follows: 1 2024 INSC 940 NJS,J W.P No.2004 of 2026 5 12.2 It is settled law that every administrative or quasi-judicial order must contain the reasons. Such reasons go a long way in not only ensuring that the authority has applied his mind to the facts and the law, but also provide the grounds for the aggrieved party to assail the order in the manner known to law. In the absence of any reasons, it also possesses a difficulty for the judicial authorities to test the correctness of the order or in other words, exercise its power of judicial review. … 12.6 It is manifestly clear from the above judgments that reasons are heartbeat of every order and every notice must specify the grounds on which the administrative or quasi-judicial authority intends to proceed; if any document is relied upon to form the basis of enquiry, such document must be furnished to the employee; it is only then a meaningful reply can be furnished; and the failure to furnish the documents referred and relied in the notice would vitiate the entire proceedings as being arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. … 10. … 10. In Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept.2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the reason is the soul of Law. Referring to a catena of judgments in M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan 3 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph No.51 held as follows: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. 2 AIR 1980 SC 1 3 (2010) 9 SCC 496 NJS,J W.P No.2004 of 2026 6 f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". NJS,J W.P No.2004 of 2026 7 o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". 11. In the light of the above stated legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order under challenge is not sustainable as it is lacking in specific reasons as to why the explanation offered by the petitioners deserves no consideration. 12. Accordingly, the impugned Confirmation Order dated 12.01.2026 is set aside. It is open to the respondent No.3 to pass appropriate reasoned order by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Till such time, no coercive action in respect of the subject matter petrol bunk shall be initiated. At the same time, the petitioners shall also not undertake any developments/constructions. 13. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:23.01.2026 Ksj