Dasari Shankar Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 485 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

                WRIT PETITION No.1604 of 2023

JUDGMENT:-

1.    Heard Sri A.Nirmal Babu, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal

Administration for the respondent Nos.1 and 3, Sri N.Ranga

Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.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:-

"In the above mentioned circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing confirmation order Notice No.385/1015/AND/UC/2022, dated 11.1.2023 directing to bring down the construction made to an extent of 1177.94 Sq. meters in Survey Number 83/1, Door No.21/143/83/1 of SKD Colony, Adoni, Kurnool District as bad, illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21, 86 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside and to pass such other order or orders, in the interest justice."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent No.2 through its delegate, the Town Planning Officer

served a notice of the provisional order dated 01.01.2023

through affixation. The petitioner was permitted to submit reply

and also to stop further constructions, in view of the

deviations/violations as identified and mentioned in the show

cause notice. He further submits that the petitioner submitted

the reply on 07.01.2023, but the order of confirmation was

passed on 11.01.2023 without considering the reply as also

mentioning that the petitioner did not submit any reply which

fact is not correct. The petitioner therefore approached the

respondent No.2 on 12.01.2023, informed about filing of his

reply dated 07.01.2023, but even then the order of confirmation

dated 11.01.2023 has not been recalled.

5. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, on the

basis of written instructions from the respondent No.2, submits

that the petitioner's reply is not received in the Office of the

Commissioner. He submits that the copy of the reply as

annexed to the writ petition, though contains seal of the

Corporation/respondent No.2, but there are no signatures

thereon of the person receiving the same. He further submits

that there is no entry in the Register maintained for entering the

replies received.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if on the

copy of the petitioner's reply only seal was affixed and the

receiving official did not put signature and it was not entered in

the concerned register it is not the fault of the petitioner for

which the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

7. The seal of the Office of the respondent No.2 on the

petitioner's reply dated 07.11.2022 has not been disputed.

8. From perusal of the photostat copy of the receiving

register as placed before this Court by learned Standing

Counsel, it transpires that at Page No.330-331 after receiving

date 07.01.2023, there is an entry of receiving dated 10.01.2023

and thereafter there are again some entries of the receivings

dated 07.01.2023. It prima facie, shows that the entries are not

in order, as the entry dated 10.01.2023 could not be in between

the entries dated 07.01.2023. However, the Court is not

expressing any final view on the above aspect of maintaining the

said Register in the Office of the respondent No.2 with respect to

receiving and entry of the replies received.

9. The impugned order of confirmation is of civil

consequences. The petitioner's certain constructions have been

ordered to be demolished. Such an order can be passed only

after affording opportunity of hearing and where reply is filed,

on consideration of such reply for justified reasons.

10. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel also

submits that the petitioner may re-submit his reply as annexed

to the petition upon which the respondent No.2 shall pass fresh

order after considering the reply.

11. In view of the aforesaid, to meet the ends of justice as also

with the consent of the parties counsel, this writ petition is

being disposed of finally in the following terms:-

i) The petitioner shall submit fresh copy of his reply dated

07.01.2023, along with copy of this order before the respondent

No.2 within a period of one week (01) from the date of receipt of

copy of this order.

ii) The respondent No.2 shall pass fresh orders within a

further period of two (02) weeks in accordance with law, on

consideration of the reply.

iii) The impugned order of confirmation dated 11.01.2023

shall remain in abeyance till passing of the fresh order and shall

abide by such fresh order of the Commissioner.

iv) The petitioner shall not raise any further construction, till

passing of the final order as aforesaid.

v) If the petitioner fails to submit copy of this order along

with fresh copy of the explanation/reply dated 07.01.2023

within the period as aforesaid, the benefit of this order will not

be available to him and it shall be open for the respondent No.2

to proceed further, pursuant to the impugned order dated

11.01.2023, in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, shall also stand closed.

__________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 30.01.2023 Note:-

Issue C.C by 02.02.2023 B/o:- SCS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

WRIT PETITION No.1604 of 2023

Date: 30.01.2023

Scs