Heard Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar vs Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 5494 AP

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

                WRIT PETITION No.26801 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Sri G. Naresh

Kumar, representing Sri M. Manohara Reddy, learned standing

counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties,

the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage, as in the facts of

the case as also the prayer made and for the order proposed to be

passed, counter affidavit would not be required.

3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

"...to declare the action of the respondent No.2 and 3 in trying to demolish the petitioner's Bar and Restaurant situated in Door No.5-214/1, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Pornaki to Nidamanuru Road, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity and without conducting any enquiry and without pointing out any irregularity or deviations as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents and their officials not to demolish the subject premises and pass such other order or order ....."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are leaseholders of the property situated in Door No.5-

214/1, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Pornaki to Nidamanuru Road,

Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District from the original owner

under the lease deed of 2015 which is extended from time to time.

The petitioners after obtaining requisite permission from the then

Gram Panchayat for construction vide D.DS.No.221/2015, dated

20.06.2005 raised the constructions which were made without any

deviations. The petitioners obtained License from the Excise

Department vide L.No.30/2017-2022 and made payment of license

fee which license was initially valid from 1st July 2017 to 30th June

2022, but on expiry of that license the petitioners again

participated in the bid and the same has been settled with the

petitioners on 31.07.2022. The petitioners are running Bar and

Restaurant business in the said premises.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on

22.08.2022 in the afternoon, the officials of the 2nd respondent

came to the place and pasted a notice to the wall which mentioned

that the petitioner had to produce valid plan in respect of the

premises of M/s. Jalsa Restaurant and Bar and also the copy of

the documents of ownership with approved plan or construction

within 3 days. He further submits that for the first time the

petitioner came to know with the notice dated 10.08.2022 when it

was pasted on 22.08.2022, but the notice dated 10.08.2022 was

never served. The petitioners, however, submitted the documents

as required by the said notice on the same date by 3.30 p.m with

the 3rd respondent. But, still the authorities are threatening to

demolish the structures whereas for such demolition any notice

has not been issued. He submits that under the circumstances,

the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that the respondents'

authorities will demolish the construction without following any

due process of law.

6. Sri G. Naresh Kumar, representing Sri M. Manohara

Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents No.2 & 3,

submits that by means of the said notice dated 10.08.2022 the

petitioners has only been asked to submit certain documents to

enable the respondents' authorities to take further action. He

submits that the said notice is not for demolition but only asking

for certain documents to satisfy the respondents' authorities if any

further action is required or not. He further submits that after

submission of the documents required, or if the documents have

already been submitted as stated by the petitioner in the affidavit,

on examination of such documents, if any action is required, the

authorities will proceed as per the procedure under the relevant

provisions of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. By the notice dated 10.08.2022 the petitioners has been

called upon to produce the valid plan copy, copy of the documents

in respect of the permission i.e., M/s. Jalsa Restaurant and Bar

and certain other documents, as mentioned therein, which as per

the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners have

already been filed before the authority on 22.08.2022 itself. The

notice on the face of it is not for demolition.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the 2nd respondent, pursuant to

the notice and the response submitted by the petitioners, shall

consider the case and if any action is required to be taken

thereafter against the petitioners with respect to the subject matter

of the notice, the respondent authority shall proceed only in

accordance with law, under the relevant provisions of the

applicable Statutes.

10. The decision shall be taken by the competent authority

within a period of one month.

11. Until such decision is taken or for a period of one month,

whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken with respect

to the subject property except by due process of law.

12. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition

is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

consequence.

_________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date:23.08.2022 Gk `

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

WRIT PETITION No.26801 of 2022

Date:23.08.2022.

Gk.