Sala Venkanna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2911 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2911 AP
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sala Venkanna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 May, 2023

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

               WRIT PETITION No. 10385 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:-

1)    Heard Smt. P. Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for

the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal

Administration and Urban Development for Respondent

No.1, Sri. G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing

Sri. M. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the

Respondent No.2 and learned Government Pleader for

Home for the Respondent No. 3.

2) The Petitioner was issued a provisional order/notice

under Section 228(1) & (2) r/w. Section 209, 212 of Andhra

Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, and Section 89(1 & 2)

r/w. Section 82, 90(1) of APMR & UDA Act, 2016 (Act 5 of

2016), vide Notice No.13/1072/PDN/UC/2023, dated

17.03.2023, directing the Petitioner to show cause as to

why the unauthorized construction should not be

removed/altered or pulled down. The said unauthorized

construction was indicated in the notice itself.

3) The Petitioner submitted reply, dated 23.03.2023.

4) Thereafter, the "Order of Confirmation" has been

passed on 06.04.2023.

5) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

Petitioners' reply to the show cause notice has not been

considered and just by one sentence that "the reply given is

not satisfactory", without considering the contents or

assigning any reason, the 'Order of Confirmation' has been

passed.

6) Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, submits that

the petitioners' reply, as annexed to the affidavit, the same

is detailed one. He submits that, the Writ Petition may be

decided finally granting opportunity to the Respondent

No.2 to pass fresh order.

7) I have considered the submission advanced and

perused the material on record.

8) Once the show cause notice is issued and the

Petitioner filed reply, the same is required to be considered

objectively by the Authority and a reasoned order should

be passed. One sentence stating that the reply is not

satisfactory, is no consideration of the reply at all. The

order of demolition has civil consequences and adversely

affects one's right to property.

9) From reading of the order of confirmation, it is

evident that the Petitioners' reply/explanation has not been

considered.

10) The reply was filed also stating that, initially O.S.

No.16 of 2011 was filed by the Petitioner's neighbours,

which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, A.S.

No.178 of 2019 was filed by Respondent No. 3, which is

pending. The Petitioner also preferred Writ Petition

No.29877 of 2022, in which this Court directed the

Respondents not to dispossess and not to interfere with the

possession of the Petitioners over subject land without

following the process of law pending further orders.

11) In K. Ashok Kumar v. Greater Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation1 this Court observed that merely

stating that the explanation submitted is not satisfactory,

2013 (2) ALT 517 (S.B)

is not sufficient, but the order must contain the reasons for

the conclusions arrived at.

12) In K. Ashok Kumar (supra) this Court held in paras-

2 & 3 as under:

"2. Section 636 of the Act gives power to the Commissioner to require any construction made without obtaining necessary permission to be removed and in case the person to whom such a direction was issued by the Commissioner ignores or fails to remove any structure within the time specified, the said task will be carried out by the corporation at the expense of the said individual. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been issued a notice in terms of Section 452 of the Act on 31.7.2012 for which a detailed reply has been filed by the petitioners on 16.8.2012. They raised several objections. Whether those objections are tenable or otherwise would be decided by the person who is concluding the exercise in accordance with Section 636 of the Act. Whereas the relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

"the reply submitted by you vide reference 3rd cited in response to the show-cause notice has been examined and the same is not found satisfactory."

"3. To say the least this is most unsatisfactory way of deciding an issue. Every order must contain the reasons for the conclusion arrived thereat. It is the reasons which provide the links to the conclusions. The relevance of those reasons must lend support to the conclusion. The expressions "found not satisfactory" are reflective of the conclusion but, not the reason. As to why the explanation offered by the petitioners is not satisfactory, forms part of their process of reasoning."

13) For the aforesaid reasons, one line rejection of the

explanation by saying 'reply not satisfactory' is not justified

nor inconsonance with the principles of fairness,

reasonableness and the principles of natural justice.

14) Consequently, without observing anything on the

merits of the contents of show cause notice or in the reply,

the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 is set aside, with

direction that the 2nd Respondent shall pass fresh order,

after considering the Petitioner's reply and recording the

reasons, within a period of two [02] weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

15) The Petitioner shall not raise any further