Gutta Ravichandra, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6156 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

               WRIT PETITION No.28410 of 2022

JUDGMENT:-

1.    Heard Sri Raviteja Padiri, learned counsel, representing

Ms. Yaswani Pilla, learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned    Assistant     Government             Pleader         for    Municipal

Administration for the respondent No.1 and Sri G.Naresh

Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri M.Manohar Reddy,

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. With the consent of the parties counsels, the writ petition

is being disposed of finally at this stage.

3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been filed for the following relief:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notices bearing No.871/1073/VMC/UC/2022 dated 11.08.2022 and bearing No.151/1075/ELR/UC/2022, dated 30.08.2022 wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the Petitioners are not liable for demolition of the building constructed by the petitioners and pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

4. Sri Raviteja Padiri, learned counsel, representing Sri

Yaswani Pilla, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the impugned order under Section 452(2) and 461(2) of Andhra

Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, "the APMC

Act"), dated 30.08.2022 was passed confirming the provisional

order and directing the petitioners to bring down the

construction within seven (07) days, failing which action will be

initiated for demolition. He submits that the impugned order

mentions that pursuant to the provisional order/notice dated

11.08.2022, the petitioners did not submit the reply. He

submits that pursuant to the provisional/notice dated

11.08.2022, which was served to the petitioners by Ward

Planning and Regulation Secretary (for short, "the WPRS"), the

petitioners bonafide submitted the reply through WPRS on

28.08.2022 who received the same but it appears that the reply

was not forwarded to the Commissioner and consequently, in

the order it has been mentioned that the petitioners did not

submit reply.

5. Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri

M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent No.2 submits that WPRS is authorized only to serve

the notice on behalf of the Commissioner, but no authority to

receive the reply. It is not his responsibility to receive or to

forward those replies to the Commissioner. As such the

petitioners did not submit the reply to the competent authority

and consequently, there is no illegality in the order mentioning

that no reply was served.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the

learned counsels for the parties.

7. In Para No.8 of the writ petition, it has been mentioned

that the notice was served to the petitioners by WPRS and the

petitioners submitted the reply to him. The reply contains the

receiving initials also. When the WPRS is not authorized to

receive reply to the notice he ought not to have received the

petitioner's reply and would have asked the petitioners to file

reply directly to the competent authority.

8. At this stage, Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel

submits that the petitioners' reply annexed with the writ

petition at Page No.72 will be considered by the respondent No.2

who shall pass fresh orders accordingly.

9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is

being disposed of finally with direction to the respondent No.2,

to pass fresh orders pursuant to the provisional order dated

11.08.2022, after considering the petitioners'

reply/representation dated 23.08.2022 (at Page No.72 of the

writ petition), within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of

production of copy of this order before the said authority along

with the copy of the representation dated 23.08.2022.

10. Till passing of the final order or for a period of four (04)

weeks from today, the impugned order shall remain in

abeyance, which shall abide by the final order.

11. If the petitioners fail to submit copy of the order as

aforesaid before the respondent No.2 within ten (10) days, it

shall be open to the respondent No.2 to proceed in furtherance

of the impugned order.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall also stand closed.

__________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 06.09.2022 JJJJJJJ Note:-

Issue C.C. by 13.09.2022 B/o SCS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

WRIT PETITION No.28410 of 2022

Date: 06.09.2022

Scs