1 APHC010694892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 757/2026 Between: 1. VISION NATIVES, A REGISTERED SOCIETY, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SRI CHIGULURI ARJUNA RAO, S/O LATE PURI JAGANNADHA RAO, CHRISTIAN, AGED 67 YEARS. PLOT NO. 206, SECTOR-IV, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM-530017 . ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE GREATER VISHAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Alladi Radhakrishna, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order, or Direction one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declaring the inaction of the part of 2nd respondent the Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in keeping the revision pending without disposing of the same as illegal arbitrary offending the principals of natural justice, violating article 14, 21 and 300A and consequently direct the 2nd respondent, the commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation to dispose the revision petition dated 26/07/2014 within time limit framed by the Hon'ble Court and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and necessary in circumstances of the case.” 3. When this Court has noticed that the Writ Petitioner has challenged the inaction of the Respondents in not disposing of the Review Petition filed by him on 26.07.2014 (Ex.P.4), Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2, has drawn the attention of this Court to an Endorsement dated 23.12.2015 (Ex.P.6) and would submit that the said Endorsement is passed by the Zonal Commissioner, Zone-I, GVMC in response to the Review Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner dated 26.07.2014. Having noted the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents and since the Endorsement does not specifically refer to the Review Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner dated 26.07.2014 (Ex.P.4), this Court had directed the Respondents to obtain Written Instructions whether the Endorsement is the Final Order passed in the Review Petition. 3 4. Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that the Endorsement dated 23.12.2015 (Ex.P.6) is the Order passed against the Review Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner dated 26.07.2014. 5. Having noted the same, this Court finds that the Endorsement dated 23.12.2015 (Ex.P.6) is a Non-speaking Order. When this Court has perused the contents of the Review Petition of the Writ Petitioner dated 26.07.2014, this Court has noticed that the Writ Petitioner had categorically stated that the subject premises have not been converted into any commercial establishment, much less into a Cinema/Public Entertainment and therefore, there is no occasion for the Respondents to enhance the property tax abnormally from Rs.14,020/- to Rs.1,89,937/-. This Court is of the view that the Endorsement does not answer any of the contentions raised by the Petitioner in Review Petition. 6. This Court is of the opinion that it is a Non-speaking Order which is passed by the Zonal Commissioner in violation of the principles of Natural Justice. In this view of the matter, the Endorsement dated 23.12.2015 (Ex.P.6) is set-aside. The Respondent No.2 is directed to pass a Speaking Order. 7. Since the Review has been submitted way back on 26.07.2014 and Non-speaking Endorsement has been passed by the Respondents on 23.12.2015 (Exs.P.4 & P.6 respectively), this Court is of the view that a fresh opportunity must be provided to the Writ Petitioner to place all such material on record in support of this case. Similarly, the Official Respondents are also required to show evidence that the Writ Petitioner has, in fact, converted the subject premises into commercial establishment, particularly as Cinema or Public Entertainment. The Respondents are statutorily obligated to follow the principles of Natural Justice by issuing prior Notice and accepting any contentions or documents filed by the Writ Petitioner before passing the Speaking Order. Let the Speaking Order be passed within a period of 4 eight (8) weeks from today and communicate a copy of such Order to the Petitioner forthwith. Petitioner is given liberty to file all contentions and material documents within a period of two (2) weeks from today. 8. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:06.03.2026 Vns