APHC010393722026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21111/2026 Between: 1. DR. K. ANEESH KUMAR, S/O K. RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RIO D.NO.20-3 -31-D 1, NEAR ITT, SIVA JYOTHI NAGAR, TIRUPATHI NAGAR, TIRUPATHI MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. - 517507 2. P. MAMATHA, W/O DR. K. ANEESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RIO D.NO.19-3-2H/A1/2, KAIKALACHERUVU, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATHI TOWN AND DISTRICT. 517507 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. -522237 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522501 3. TIRUPATHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY THE COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. -517501 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, TOWN PLANNING SECTION, TIRUPATHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. - 517501 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 toissue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing Provisional Order/Show-Cause Notice bearing No.72/1012/TPT/UC/2026, dated 27-05-2026, and the consequential Confirmation Order bearing Notice No.72/1012/TPT/UC/2026, dated 09-07- 2026, issued by the 4th respondent under Sections 452 and 461 of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 read with Sections 86 and 89 of the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016, in respect of the petitioners' premises bearing D.No.23-11- 271, situated at S.V. Nagar Main Road, S.V. Nagar, Ward No.23, Tirupathi, and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal, non-speaking, _ without proper application of mind, unsupported by any inspection report or authenticated measurement, contrary to Building Permit No.PER/1012/0032/2026, dated 14-02-2026, violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the Confirmation Order dated 09-07-2026 and direct the respondents to conduct a joint inspection and measurement of the subject premises in the presence of the petitioners and their licensed technical person, furnish the inspection and measurement particulars to the petitioners, receive their explanation and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, and pending such exercise not to take any coercive action, including demolition, in respect of the subject premises, 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 direct the 3rd respondent not to demolish the building premises bearing D.No. 23-11-271 of S V Nagar Main Road, S V Nagar area, Ward No. 23 (R.S./T.S./N.T.S./D.No. 305/1), within the limits of Tirupathi Municipal Corporation without following due process of law Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DWARAMPUDI SAVITHRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 The Court made the following Order:- The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 4th respondent has issued a provisional order dated 27.05.2026 and the consequential order dated 09.07.2026, calling upon the petitioners to remove the alleged unauthorised construction. It is submitted that the petitioners had constructed the building after obtaining due permission from the 4th respondent. Though permission was granted for construction of three floors, the petitioners have constructed only one floor and intends to use the same as a doctor's clinic. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have treated the proposed clinic as a commercial activity and, on that basis, have issued the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners is willing to submit an appropriate application before the competent authority seeking alteration of the sanctioned plan for the proposed usage of the building. 2. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 submits that Rule 3(9)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017, mandates obtaining separate permission where a building permitted for residential use is proposed to be used for commercial purposes. It is further submitted that, in the event the petitioners intends to change the usage of the building from residential to commercial, a fresh application is required to be made under Section 433 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. 4 3. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the proposed use of the premises as a doctor's clinic may not fall within the ambit of commercial usage. 4. Be that as it may, this Court leaves it open to the petitioners to submit an appropriate application under Section 433 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 before respondent No. 3, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, no further coercive steps shall be taken against the subject construction. 5. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 30.07.2026 RSD 5 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21111/2026 30.07.2026 RSD