( 1 ) G. V. NARSIMHA Reddy and g. V. Mohan Reddy, the writ petitioners filed the present writ petition against the commissioner, Nirmal Municipality, Adilabad district, praying for the issuance of a writ of "certiorari" calling for records pertaining to the Order of the Commissioner in his proceedings Ref. Unauthorised VO. No. 33/ 96-97, dated 21-2-1997 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A. P. Municipalities act, 1965 (for brevity the Act ) and further being unconstitutional and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and pass such other suitable orders.

( 2 ) ELABORATE affidavit sworn to by the first petitioner narrating several details was filed in support of writ petition. The respondent-Municipality filed a counter- affidavit and the petitioners also filed a reply affidavit thereto.

( 3 ) SRI V. M. Chary, representing Sri s. Niranjan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the counter- affidavit and the reply affidavit and had pointed out that the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances, are entitled to the benefit of the deemed permission. The learned Counsel also pointed out to several provisions of the Act and also maintained that the provisional order was not issued at all and hence, the confirmation order is bad in law. The learned Counsel also pointed out that even in the impugned order no reasonable time had been specified, and in the facts and circumstances, the same cannot be said to be sustainable. The learned Standing Counsel also placed reliance on 3 ACES v. Municipal corporation of Hyderabad, 1995 (1) ALD 1 (FB), a decision of the Full Bench decided in relation to the provisions of the hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

( 4 ) PER contra, Sri Polisetty Radha krishna, the learned Standing Counsel, representing the respondent-Municipality had submitted that in the light of the stand taken in the counter-affidavit by the municipality, it is clear that the procedure had been followed in accordance with law. The provisional order and the confirmation order had been issued only because of the deviation of the sanctioned plan. The standing Counsel also pointed out that the application of the 1st petitioner was rejected and hence, the provisions relating to the deemed permission would not come into play at all. The learned Standing Counsel also made certain submissions relating to the scope, ambit and powers conferred on the respondent by virtue of the provisions of the Act.

( 5 ) HEARD the Counsel.

( 6 ) THE petitioners had questioned the proceedings of the respondent in Ref. Unauthorized VO. No. 33/96-97, dated 21. 2. 1997, whereunder it was specified that to the Notice dated 15-2-1997 issued under section 228 (2) of the Act, no reasons had been explained, hence the provisional order had been confirmed and after the receipt of the said order within three days, the constructions made without permission and in deviation of the Rules and Regulations to be removed in default, the Municipality would remove the same and the expenses to be recovered from the petitioners and the municipality would not be responsible for the consequential difficulties, which may flow therefrom.

( 7 ) THE stand taken by the petitioners is that they are the owners of an extent of 21 guntas of land in Sy. No. 1901 abutting national Highway No. 7, Nirmal. After obtaining the requisite permission from the respondent-Municipality vide proceedings no. D/706/93, dated 25-8-1993, on the same day, the petitioners started construction of the ground floor of Commercial Complex in the said survey number and it is also stated that the said permission was granted by the respondent-Municipality on the directions of the Regional Joint Director, town Planning, Warangal.

( 8 ) SPECIFIC stand was taken that the construction of the ground floor was made as per the rev