APHC010153972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 8026/2026 Between: 1. PERLA DEVI, W/O NALLA RAJU, AGE 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-1, BLOCK NO-9, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 2. KARRI NAGAMANI, W/O THATHA BABU, AGE 45 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-TF-7, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 3. MEESALA SATYANARAYANA, S/O KURAMAYYA, AGE 39 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-7, BLOCK NO-4, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 4. CHINTAPALLI PERAMMA, W/O CHINNAYA, AGE 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-5, BLOCK NO-7, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 5. MADAGALA SIVA LAKSHMI, W/O NAGARAJU, AGE 32 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-7, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 6. VADAMODULA POLARAO, S/O VENKAYYA, AGE 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-2, BLOCK NO-7, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 7. PERLA DURGA DEVI, W/O DURGA PRASAD, AGE 37 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-3, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 8. SURADA SEETHAMMA, W/O MASENU, AGE 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-1, BLOCK NO-2, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 9. VASUPILLI SANDYA, W/O SATISH KUMAR, AGE 46 YEARS. 2 RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-3, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 10. DASARI ANNAPURNA, W/O SANJEEV, AGE 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-7, BLOCK NO-10, FLUD FLUD CYCLONE FLOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 11. AKULA DHANA, W/O DHANARAJU, AGE 34 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-1, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 12. PILLA LAKSHMANA RAO, S/O LATE NOOKANNA, AGE 51 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-5, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 13. PANDA SAROJINI, W/O RAGHUNADH, AGE 68 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-8, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 14. SURADA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O DASU, AGE 40 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-3, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 15. REDDY RAMU, W/O SURYA PRAKASH RAO, AGE 46 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-4, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 16. DASARI PANDARIBAI, W/O MOHANA RAO, AGE 44 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-6, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 17. BADE LAKSHMANA RAO, S/O SURI, AGE 43 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-2, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 18. SURADA YELLAJI, S/O LATE MASENU, AGE 33 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-5, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 19. SURADA DANAYYAMMA, W/O APPANNA, AGE 52 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-5, BLOCK NO-6, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 20. JAMMU BHADRAMMA, W/O APPARAO, AGE 52 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-TF-3, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 21. SURADA ESWAR, S/O DASS,21. AGE 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-8, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, 3 MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 22. GARIKINA LAKSHMI, W/O CHINNA, AGE 31 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-7, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 23. SURADA BHOOLOKA, W/O DANESU, AGE 34 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-6, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 24. NOLLI RAMU, W/O NOLLI, AGE 39 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-5, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 25. DAMIREDDY NAGAMANI, W/O PRASAD, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO- GF-4, BLOCK NO-10, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 26. BADIREDDY SRINU,, S/O RAMULU, AGE 54 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-5, BLOCK NO-7, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 27. VILLA SUBHA SANTOSHI, W/O DURGA PRASAD, AGE 29 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-7, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 28. BONAM BHARATHI, W/O RAMA KRISHNA, AGE 40 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-8, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 29. KOPPINEDI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGE 35 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-3, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 30. BONAM NAGESWARA RAO, S/O SUBBARAO, AGE 73 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-6, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 31. KOPPINEETI SRI LAKSHMI, W/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGE 52 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-4, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 32. BONI LAKSHMI, W/O BANGARU NAIDU, AGE 44 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-7, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 33. TAPPA MAHA LAKSHMI, W/O BEESU, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-TF-5, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, 4 VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 34. BUDUMURI LEELA, W/O APPARAO, AGE 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-7, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 35. TOTADA GANGAMMA, W/O LATE GANGISETTY, AGE 70 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-6, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040 36. THOTADA SRI LATHA, W/O SRINIVAS, AGE 35 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-7, BLOCK NO-8, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 37. RAYIPILLI NAGAMANI, W/O KANTARAO, AGE 37 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-2, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 38. THAPA PREAM KUMAR, S/O LAI BAHADUR, AGE 35 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-5, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 39. BOBBIN MAHESH, S/O MUTYALA NAIDU, AGE 24 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-5, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 40. POLLIPALLI KANAKA, W/O YELLA RAO, AGE 50 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-1, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 41. NARAYANAPURAM KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI, W/O POLICE, AGE 38 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-5, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 42. BOBBIN RAJU, S/O GANGARAJU, AGE 40 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-6, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 43. NEELAM SRINIVAS, S/O VENKAT RAO, AGE 40 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-TF-1, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 44. RAYAPILLI SANYASI RAO, S/O PYDI SETTI, AGE 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-TF-2, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 45. POLARAPU SANKAR RAO, S/O APPARAO, AGE 51 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-8, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE 5 HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 46. KAVVADI SWAPNA, W/O, KRISHNA RAO, AGE 34 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-6, BLOCK NO-9, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 47. KOYANA KONDA, W/O MAHESWARA RAO, AGE 43 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-1, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 48. UMMIDI VARALAKSHMI, W/O YELLAJI. AGE 54 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-3, BLOCK NO-9, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 49. BANTUPALLI RAMANA BABU, S/O BANGARAYYA, AGE 49 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-2, BLOCK NO-9, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 50. PODILAPU KALAVATHI, W/O SURYANARAYANA, AGE 52 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-5, BLOCK NO-8, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 51. BOCHU KRUPA, W/O SIMHACHALAM, AGE 34 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-TF-7, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 52. ALAMANDA MURALI NAGA MANI, W/O TATA RAO, AGE 49 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-TF-6, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 53. TALABATTULA DASAMMA, W/O GOPINADH, AGE 52 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-5, BLOCK NO-9, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 54. PATNALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O NARASIMHULU, AGE 39 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-TF-8, BLOCK NO-5, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 55. VANAPALLI SEETHAMAHALAKSHMI, W/O APPALARAJU , AGE 39 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-TF-8, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 56. ADARI DEVI, W/O ANVESH, AGE 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-2, BLOCK NO-3, FLUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 57. KOLLI DEMUDAMMA, W/O APPALA NAIDU, AGE 41 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-4, BLOCK NO-9, HUD HUD CYCLONE 6 HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 58. GRANDHI RAMALAKSHMI, W/O SUDHEER, AGE 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-2, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 59. MODU SADANANDARAO, S/O APPALAKONDA, AGE 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-1, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 60. GODIA VENKATA ADINARAYANA, S/O RAMAKRISHNA, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-TF-2, BLOCK NO-7, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 61. VEMULA SURI BABU, S/O CHINNA APPARAO, AGE 50 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-8, BLOCK NO-8, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 62. CHENNAMSHETTI SHIVA, S/O GOURINAIDU, AGE 33 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-SF-8, BLOCK NO-3, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 63. KATRAKUNNA DURGARAO, W/O LATE KONDAYYA, AGE 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-6, BLOCK NO-5, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 64. PENDURTHI ADHI LAKSHMI, W/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGE 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-GF-6, BLOCK NO-5, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 65. KENGUVA GOWRI NAIDU, S/O SWAMINAIDU, AGE 40 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-FF-4, BLOCK NO-1, HUD HUD CYCLONE HOUSES, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLOT NO 11 AND 12, BEHIND BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT -520007 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530002. 7 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED (APHCL), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530017 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION, ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530017 6. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM-530002 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ARILOVA POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM-530057. 8. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 9. THE ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, (APEPDCL), REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,C/O 50-27-5/1, TPT COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530013 10. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, APEPDCL, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 11. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION/ZONE-LLL, APEPDCL, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. 12. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION SECTION, APEPDCL ARILOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530040. ...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 tomay be pleased (i) to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in threatening to dispose the petitioners from the legitimate allotted Flats, situated in S. No. 20/4, Pineapple Coloney, Mudasarlova, Visakhapatnam without providing hearing opportunity, without passing appropriate orders by issuing impugned notices Rc. No. 180/2015/Hud Hud/Engg. / Dt. nil.05.2025, and 16.03.2026 and the action of the 12th respondent in disconnecting the electricity connection of the subject properties, without considering their reply dt. 23.01.2026, to the notices Lr. No. AEE/OS/ARL/VSP/F. No./D. No 08/2026, dated. 05.01.2026 Which is arbitrary, unlawful, against the principals of natural justice and Volitation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India,1950 and (ii) to direct the 4th and 8 12th respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession of legitimately allotted flats and (iii) consequently, to direct the 12th respondent to restore the electricity connections of the petitioners, (iii) to set aside the improper notices issued by the respondent authorities and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BHAGATHI JOGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR ENERGY 4. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 5. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 6. MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) 7. GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following: 9 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.8026/2026 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “(i) to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in threatening to dispossess of the petitioners from the legitimate allotted Flats, situated in S. No. 20/4, Pineapple Coloney, Mudasarlova, Visakhapatnam without providing hearing opportunity, without passing appropriate orders by issuing impugned notices Rc. No. 180/2015/Hud Hud/Engg. Dt. nil.05.2025, and 16.03.2026 and the action of the 12th respondent in disconnecting the electricity connection of the subject properties, without considering their reply dt. 23.01.2026, to the notices Lr. No. AEE/OS/ARL/VSP/F. No./D. No 08/2026, dated. 05.01.2026 Which is arbitrary, unlawful, against the principals of natural justice and Volitation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, 1950 and (ii) to direct the 4th and 12th respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession of legitimately allotted flats and (iii) consequently, to direct the 12th respondent to restore the electricity connections of the petitioners, (iii) to set aside the improper notices issued by the respondent authorities and pass.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mallikarjuna Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 - A.P. Housing Corporation as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, submits that the petitioners are landless poor persons and they fall below the poverty line. He submits that pursuant to the scheme initiated by the Central as well as State Governments, with the collaboration of the A.P. Housing Corporation authorities, to the affected families of the Hud- hud cyclone, severely affected the Visakhapatnam region, the petitioners were allotted subject flats at Mudasarlova, Hud Hud Cyclone colony (Pineapple 10 colony), Visakhapatnam Urban limits on payment basis and received Occupancy Certificates from the 2nd respondent Corporation Visakhapatnam District Authorities. Learned counsel submits that ever since the allotment of house flats, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession right from several years onwards by paying electricity bills and municipal taxes regularly to the respondent authorities. 4. He further submits that, while that is the position, the 2nd respondent Corporation personnel, without any enquiry, came to the house flats of the petitioners and affixed the notices dated 16.03.2026 on the doors informing them to evict the subject flats within three days. He further contends that subsequently, the petitioners submitted their replies, and the same were not considered by the 2nd respondent Corporation. He submits that, added to that, the electricity authorities also issued notices dated 05.01.2026 received on 21.01.2026, intimating the removal of electricity connections in the petitioners’ flats. 5. Thus, challenging the arbitrary and unilateral action of the respondent authorities, more particularly, the 2nd respondent Corporation, Visakhapatnam region personnel, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the people of very same locality had instituted W.P.No.17281 of 2025 and W.P.No.5158 of 2026 before this Court and the same were disposed of by this Court. Accordingly, she prays for the same relief. 11 6. Conversely, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Corporation submits that the respondent authorities are acting within the parameters of the law. He submits that in spite of the specific notices issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioners are not coming forward with their explanation. He also placed a copy of the written instructions dated 07.04.2026 issued by the respondent Corporation and states that enquiry is being conducted on 07.04.2026 in order to root out the ineligible persons. 7. This Court has heard the respective counsel and also perused the material available on record. 8. It is evident from the material on record that house allotment documents, occupancy certificates issued by the 2nd respondent corporation personnel further house tax payment and electricity payment receipts produced by the petitioner, house tax receipts were issued to the petitioners by the concerned civic authorities. Even as per the version of the 2nd respondent Corporation, the petitioners were allotted house flats on payment of the requisite amounts. Apparently, even according to the 2nd respondent personnel also, they are taking steps to find out ineligible candidates from the said allotted flats, but not all the persons in total. More so, the enquiry process is still going on. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without arriving at final conclusions in the enquiry process at this middle stage, evicting the petitioners from their respective flats is contrary to Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against the well settled legal position. 12 9. In the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah1, the Hon’ble Apex Court reaffirmed that deprivation of property must be strictly in accordance with a just, fair, and reasonable procedure under Article 300-A and held that the mere existence of a law is not enough; proper procedural safeguards are mandatory to validate such action. The relevant para is extracted as under: “...28. While it is true that after the 44th Constitutional Amendment [the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978], the right to property drifted from Part III to Part XII of the Constitution, there continues to be a potent safety net against arbitrary acquisitions, hasty decision-making and unfair redressal mechanisms. Despite its spatial placement, Article 300-A [300-A of the Constitution:“300- A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.—No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”] which declares that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law” has been characterised both as a constitutional and also a human right [Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (2007) 10 SCC 448; Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 799] . To assume that constitutional protection gets constricted to the mandate of a fair compensation would be a disingenuous reading of the text and, shall we say, offensive to the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution.” 30. “...Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non- exhaustive. These are: (i) The duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property — the right to notice, (ii) The duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition — the right to be heard, (iii) The duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire — the right to a reasoned decision, (vi) The duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose — the duty to acquire only for public purpose, (v) The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate — the right of restitution or fair compensation, (vi) The duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings — the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and 1 (2024) 10 SCC 533 13 (vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting — the right of conclusion.” “...31. These seven rights are foundational components of a law that is tune with Article 300-A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge. The judgment of this Court in K.T. Plantation [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414] declares that the law envisaged under Article 300-A must be in line with the overarching principles of rule of law, and must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of course, precedentially sound to describe some of these sub-rights as “procedural”, a nomenclature that often tends to undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards. These seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the real content of the right to property under Article 300-A, non-compliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being without the authority of law.” Thus, in view of the above legal position, it is crystal clear that the respondent authorities are bound to follow the constitutional ethos enunciated under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions:- i. The 2nd respondent Corporation personnel of Visakhapatnam region shall issue appropriate fresh notices to the petitioners, under proper acknowledgment, within a period of two (2) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii. On receipt of the said notices, the petitioners shall submit their explanation / reply along with the relevant documents within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. iii. On receipt of the explanation from the petitioners, the 2nd respondent Corporation Personnel shall conduct enquiry, by giving an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per the Rules and Regulations, within a period of ten (10) weeks. 14 iv. Till passing of such orders, the 2nd respondent Corporation Personnel and other respondent authorities, shall not take any steps / initiate action to dispossess the petitioners from the flats or disconnect the supply to their service connections. v. It is needless to mention that if the respondent authorities find genuine and eligible persons in the said enquiry, appropriate directions shall be issued to the discom, civic authorities for the restoration of electricity and other basic amenities to the petitioners. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 08.04.2026 GVK 15 281 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.8026 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 GVK