APHC010154602026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 8036 OF 2026 Between: 1. MANDALI UMA MAHESWARI, W/O. RAMA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC . HOUSEHOLD, R/O.DR.NO.10-83/1, ROAD, SHRAM NAGAR, GAVARAVARAM, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT - 533 201. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P - 522238. 2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ELURU, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT - 534001. 3. THE CITY PLANNER/TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ELURU, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT - 534001. ...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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing CONFORMATION ORDER U/Sec.452(2) and 461(2) r/w Secs.428, 429 of A.P.M.C. Act, 1955 and Sec.89(3) of A.P.M.R. and UDA Act 2016, 2 Dt.08.01.2026 Dt.08.01.2026 and the notice Dt.28.01.2026 received by the petitioner on 04.02.2026 directing to bring down the construction into the rule frame within 03 days from the receipt of the notice otherwise action would be initiated as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14,16,19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the CONFORMATION ORDER vide notice NO.59/1075/ELR/UC/2025, U/Sec.452(2) and 461(2) r/w Secs.428, 429 of A.P.M.C. Act, 1955 and Sec.89(3) of A.P.M.R. and UDA Act 2016, Dt.08.01.2026 and the notice Dt.28.01.2026 received by the petitioner on 04.02.2026 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to Confirmation Order notice No.59/1075/ELR/UC/2025, Dt.08.01.2026 and the notice Dt.28.01.2026 received by the petitioner on 04.02.2026, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AMARENDRA JILLELLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner (appearing through online) and Sri M. Srinu Babu, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader for MAUD and Sri Vijaya Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporations. 2. The Writ Petitioner herein has challenged the Confirmation Order dated 08.01.2026 (Ex.P.2). This impugned Order would indicate that the provisional Order that was issued on 20.11.2025 (Ex.P.1) had been confirmed since the Writ Petitioner has not evinced any interest in submitting a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2025. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, appearing online, has drawn the attention of this Court to another Proceeding issued by the Commissioner dated 28.01.2026 (Ex.P3) and he would submit that this Notice issued by the Commissioner dated 28.01.2026 had been received by the Writ Petitioner on 04.02.2026. The Confirmation Order had been passed on 08.01.2026 (Ex.P.2), which is even prior to the date on which the notice was generated i.e., on 28.01.2026. 4. This Court has perused the Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. The Confirmation Order (Ex.P.2) dated 08.01.2026 is sequel to the Show Cause Notice/Provisional Order dated 20.11.2025 (Ex.P.1). It appears that during the interregnum the Commissioner may have prepared another Notice on 28.01.2026 and had allegedly served on the Writ Petitioner only on 04.02.2026. However, the substantive Proceedings are the Provisional Order dated 20.11.2025 and the Confirmation Order dated 08.01.2026 (Ex.P.2). The Confirmation Order dated 08.01.2026 (Ex.P.2) would indicate that the Respondent Authorities were compelled to pass the Confirmation Order since the Writ Petitioner has not evinced any interest in submitting the Explanation to the Provisional Order. 4 5. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner candidly admits that the Writ Petitioner has failed to submit the Written Explanation to the Provisional Order dated 20.11.2025 and seeks indulgence from the Court to provide one more opportunity to the Writ Petitioner. 6. Having considered the request of the Writ Petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitioner deserves one final opportunity for submitting Explanation. In this view of the matter, the impugned Proceeding dated 08.01.2026 (Ex.P.2) is set aside as liberty has given to the Writ Petitioner to submit Explanation to the Show Cause notice dated 20.11.2025 (Ex.P.1) within a period of one week from the date of uploading of this Order on the web-site of this Court. Upon receipt of such Explanation from the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent Authorities are directed to consider the said Explanation and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter and communicate copy of such Speaking Order to the Writ Petitioner forthwith. 7. With these observations and directions this Writ Petition is stands partly allowed. No order as to costs. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observations on merit insofar as the claim of the Corporation is concerned. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 30.03.2026 Mnr 5 135 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 8036 OF 2026 Dt: 30.03.2026 Mnr