THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 14620/2026 ORDER: Heard, Mr.Arun Showri.G, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.6. 1. The limited grievance of the petitioner expressed before this Court is that without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 12.05.2026, the respondents issued Confirmation Order dated 11.05.2026, thereby affecting the principles of natural justice, which is an integral facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The contention of the petitioner, as narrated in the affidavit, is that he is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring 350 Sq. Yards (equivalent to 292.45 sq.meters), situated in R.S.No.174/3B, Gandigunta Village, Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District, having purchased the same from one Gottipati Brahmaiah and others under a duly registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1951/2021, dated 18.05.2021, in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Vuyyuru. 3. The property which is now under question is notified area of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (in short ‘APCRDA’), constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Arun Showri.G, would contend that the benevolent act of the petitioner in voluntarily gifting an extent of 14.93 Sq.yards from the said property to the Gram Panchayat for the 2 purpose of road widening and public amenity, vide registered Gift Deed bearing Document No.2324/2024, dated 17.04.2023, demonstrates the bona fide intention of the petitioner towards the development of the area. 5. The case of the petitioner is that after the formalities were complied with, the petitioner obtained building permission from the APCRDA vide Permit No.1168/0564/B/VYRU/VYUR/2023, dated 24.04.2023, for construction of an individual residential comprising Stilt + Ground + 2 floors (S+G+2), with a sanctioned height of 12.71 meters. The said application was accorded by the respondents only after the petitioner gifted the land for the purpose of road widening as is evident through the registered deed executed in favour of the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner disclosed to the authorities that the ground floor will be exclusively used for professional clinic/medical facility and the 1st and 2nd floors as residential. He further contends that while carrying out the construction inadvertently due to lack of technical knowledge, the application was submitted for S+G+2 i.e., permission for G + 3 floors instead of the actual configuration of G + 3 + 4th part, which he categorized as a honest mistake and presently regularly paying the house tax for the said building bearing H.No.6-155/1 to the Gram Panchayat, Gandigunta, for the years 2024-2025 and 2025-2026. 7. While matter stood thus, it is represented that the petitioner received a notice dated 19.04.2026 with nomenclature as ‘Provisional Order’ under Section 115(1) r/w Sections 108, 110, 114 and 116 of the APCRDA Act, 2014, bearing Rc.No.MAU61-DP0VUY(OTH)/19/2026-DP, alleging that the petitioner constructed a stilt floor and part 4th floor without obtaining permission, and had also deviated from the sanctioned setbacks, with a direction to show cause within 7 days, as depicted in the show-cause notice. 3 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Arun Showri.G, would submit that the petitioner received the show-cause notice dated 19.04.2026 only on 11.05.2026, after 22 days from the date of issuance, and immediately gave reply on 12.05.2026, ventilating the grievance. He would further submit that the petitioner received the Confirmation Order on 15.05.2026 which is nomenclatured as ‘Confirmation Order’ and draws the attention of the Court to the said Confirmation Order dated 11.05.2026 vide Rc.No.MAU61-DP0VUY (OTH)/19/2026-DP. He would contend that the last paragraph of the said order would construe that the respondents did not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the Provisional Order dated 19.04.2026. The last paragraph of the order reads as follows: “Therefore, this Authority has directed you to stop and remove all unauthorized construction vide provisional order u/s 115(1) Dated: 19-04-2026, further requiring you to show cause within 7 days. Even after providing reasonable time for the same, this Authority did not receive any correspondence in this regard showing sufficient cause. Therefore, confirmation order required under sec 115 (3) is here with issued with a direction to remove the violated portion of the building within 7 days of receipt of this notice, failing which, it will be treated as a continuous and intentional offence and further action, including but not limited to demolition, sealing of property and legal action, will be taken as per the provisions laid down under section 115(4), 116(4) and 114 of APCRDA Act, 2014 without any further notice. Any expenses thereof shall be recovered from you.” 9. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court would eventually see that the Town Planning Assistant for the Commissioner issued the said proceedings stating that the reply to the show-cause notice was not received though 7 days is granted. On Contra, the reply notice, which is appended to the Writ Petition is dated 12.05.2026 is eventually not considered by the respondents before issuing the Confirmation Order and the grievance of the petitioner is that had the reply/explanation considered, the order would have been different and they might have considered the request of the petitioner. 4 10. It is no more res integra that the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court has constantly reminding the quasi-judicial authorities that application of mind to the order with reasons to be adhered strictly while passing orders and in the present case, it can be seen that the final orders are passed without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, which is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. 11. It is settled principle that the issuance of a show-cause notice is not an empty formality. The authorities are under an obligation to objectively consider the explanation so furnished, and failure to do so vitiates the very decision-making process itself. The doctrine of audi alteram partem mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard, which is an essential facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. Way back, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India1, held that failure by the authorities in procedural fairness would be contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the decision so made should be a right, just and fair. 13. In ORYX Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India and others2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that application of mind should be genuinely reflected in the order passed and should not be a pre-determined conclusion. Passing of final order without considering the explanation submitted pursuant to the show-cause notice amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, renders the decision-making process arbitrary and reflects total non-application of mind by the concerned authorities. 14. This Court is concerned only with the decision making process and not the decision under the scope of Judicial Review. The said principle is 1 (1978) 1 SCC 248 2 (2010) 13 SCC 427 5 clearly enunciated and discussed by a Constitutional Bench in Rameshwar Prasad and others (VI) vs. Union of India and others.3 15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents, particularly the Commissioner, is directed to pass appropriate orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 19.04.2026 after proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, since there is a total dereliction on part of the authorities in proper application of mind in not considering the reply, the Confirmation Order dated 11.05.2026 is set aside. 16. Given to the above-stated facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 21-05-2026 BMS 3 (2006) 2 SCC 1