APHC010067612026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. B ANIL KUMAR, S/O B. NAGAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, DOOR NO. 4-407, CTM ROAD, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.- 517325 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MADANAPALLE MUNICIPALITY, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. M/S RAJA BAR AND RESTAURANT, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, RAJANNA, C.T.M. ROAD, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice bearing Rc No. 776/2025/G2 dated 31.01.2026 issued by the 2nd ii Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, collusi IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 3864 OF 2026 B ANIL KUMAR, S/O B. NAGAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 407, CTM ROAD, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, -522239 THE COMMISSIONER, MADANAPALLE MUNICIPALITY, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.- 517325 M/S RAJA BAR AND RESTAURANT, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, T.M. ROAD, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT -517325 ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice bearing Rc No. 776/2025/G2 dated 31.01.2026 issued by the 2nd ii Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, collusive, actuated by extraneous IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3328] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA B ANIL KUMAR, S/O B. NAGAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 407, CTM ROAD, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THE COMMISSIONER, MADANAPALLE MUNICIPALITY, M/S RAJA BAR AND RESTAURANT, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, T.M. ROAD, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, MADANAPALLI, ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice bearing Rc No. 776/2025/G2 dated 31.01.2026 issued by the 2nd ii ve, actuated by extraneous 2 considerations and an abuse of process, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to not to take any coercive steps including removal of the temporary tin shed or interference with the lawful possession of the petitioner and the lawful business activities of the petitioner's lessee (M/s. Raja Bar and Restaurant) at the premises in Survey No. 295, Kammepalle, Bandameeda Revenue Village, Madanapalle Municipality and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Notice dated 31.01.2026 and direct the Respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S LAKSHMI PRAMEELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. S. Lakshmi Prameela, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Gudapati Lakshmi Narayana, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Municipalities. 2. This Writ Petition is listed in the Lunch Motion on 09.02.2026 at the request of Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. Ld. Counsel would submit that there is an urgency inasmuch as the Official Respondents have illegally issued impugned Notice dated 31.01.2026 (Ex.P.1), directing the Writ Petitioner to remove the illegal construction despite the Writ Petitioner being in possession of the approved plan. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has taken this Court through the approved plan (Ex.P.3) issued on 19.03.2019 in which the Respondent Authorities have sanctioned permission to the Writ Petitioner to construct ‘stilt + two upper floors’. The Photographs filed along with this Writ Petition (Ex.P6) would indicate that the Writ Petitioner did not go ahead with the construction as per the approved plan dated 19.03.2019. Admittedly, the Writ Petitioner did not make any construction in the subject site in accordance with the approved plan dated 19.03.2019 and left the site open. It is submitted by the Ld. Standing Counsel for Respondents that the Writ Petitioner had later erected a Tin-Shed and is running a Bar and Restaurant. 4. Section 209 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 would indicate that raising of any structure other than a hut requires permission of the Municipality. The Writ Petitioner has not made any Application for construction of the shed. The impugned Notice (Ex.P.1) would indicate that the shed erected by the Writ Petitioner is being used for running a Bar and Restaurant titled as “Raja Bar and Restaurant”. On query made by this Court whether the Writ Petitioner has moved any Application for seeking Permission/ Approval before the Respondent Authorities before erecting the shed, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner has not 4 made any Application. The Explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioner dated 04.02.2026, in response to the impugned Notice dated 31.01.2026 (Ex.P.1), does not indicate that the Writ Petitioner has made Application seeking permission from the Respondents. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed by granting liberty to the Writ Petitioner to make an Application as per the law before the Respondent Authorities within one (01) week from the date of uploading of this Order on the web-site of this Court. If any such Application is made by the Writ Petitioner within one week as indicated above, the Respondent Authorities are directed to consider the same and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law within two (02) weeks thereafter and communicate the said Order to the Writ Petitioner forthwith. 6. The Respondents are at liberty to initiate any coercive steps only after serving the Speaking Order on the Writ Petitioner. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 09.02.2026 Mnr 5 123 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 3864 OF 2026 Dt: 09.02.2026 Mnr