Sk Husain Basha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2204 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

           WRIT PETITION NO. 10048 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:-

1)   Heard Sri. Siva Prasad Venati, learned counsel for the

Petitioner, Sri. P. Anand Surya, Advocate, representing

Sri.Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

for 2nd Respondent. Notice has been accepted by Assistant

Government Pleader for Municipal and Urban Development -

the Respondent No. 1.

2) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

Petitioner after obtaining building permission started raising

construction, however he received a notice, dated

10.04.2023, under Sections 452 and 461 of G.H.M.C. Act and

other provisions, inter alia, on the ground that the Petitioner

is carrying on with the building construction without

obtaining prior permission, directing the Petitioner to show

cause. He submits that, the notice has been issued by the

Town Planning Supervisor, Nellore Municipal Corporation.

The Petitioner has submitted his reply, dated 12.04.2023, to

the same authority inter alia stating that the Petitioner has

got the building permission. The Petitioner apprehends that

without considering the Petitioner reply, the Respondent may

implement the notice and if the notice is implemented, the

Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss though he has got the

building permission.

3) Sri. P. Anand Surya, submits that the Petitioner's

apprehension is mis-founded, in as-much-as, once the

Petitioner has submitted the reply, the competent authority

will consider the reply and pass appropriate orders and

without passing such order, the notice could not be

implemented, which has been issued to the Petitioner for the

purpose of affording opportunity of hearing. He further

submits that the reply has been submitted to the Town

Planning Supervisor of the Municipal Corporation, but he is

not the competent authority to pass the order and the

competent authority to consider the Petitioner's reply and

pass order is the Commissioner of the 2nd Respondent.

4) In view of the aforesaid submissions, to keep the

petition pending would serve no useful purpose, which, as

such, with the consent of both the counsel for the parties is

being disposed of finally, providing that the Petitioner shall

file the copy of the reply, submitted to the Town Planning

Supervisor, before the 2nd Respondent along with the copy of

this order and the 2nd Respondent shall pass appropriate

orders' in accordance with law, after taking into consideration

the Petitioner's reply within a period of four [04] weeks from

the date of receipt of the copy of this order along with the

reply. The Petitioner to submit the reply, as aforesaid, within

a period of ten [10] days from the date of receipt of copy of

this order.

5) Till the passing of the final orders by the 2nd

Respondent, no coercive action shall be taken against the

Petitioner, with respect to the subject property, pursuant to

the impugned notice, dated 10.04.2023.

6) With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands

disposed off.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, shall also stand closed.

________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 21.04.2023.

Note:

Issued C.C. by 24.04.2023 SM/DSV

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

WRIT PETITION NO. 10048 OF 2023

Date: 21.04.2023

SM/DSV