( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the impugned endorsement dated 1. 2. 2003 in b. A. No. 531/2002/g. 1 directing the petitioner to remove the AC sheet shed and saw mill as illegal and arbitrary and for appropriate consequential directions.

( 2 ) THOUGH the interlocutory matters being WPMP No. 12107 of 2003 and WVMP No. 2580 of 2003 are listed before this Court, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition itself was heard and being disposed of.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he obtained lease of 200 square yards of land with an intention to set up a saw-mill. He applied for building permission for construction of a shed for running a saw mill in industrial area. The said application made on 10. 10. 2001 was rejected on the ground that for construction of industrial shed minimum extent of land required is 450 square yards and therefore no construction is permissible on the land admeasuring 200 square yards. Therefore, the petitioner obtained lease in respect of 460 square yards of land and resubmitted the plan on 20. 12. 2002. According to the petitioner, he was not informed about the rejection of his application and therefore he raised a small shed with AC sheets. He received the impugned order/endorsement dated 1. 2. 2003 on 7. 4. 2003 whereunder he was directed to remove the shed with AC sheet roof. He was also advised to obtain a no objection certificate from the A. P. Pollution Control Board.

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit accompanying the vacate stay application, it is stated that the petitioner resubmitted the plan for approval on 20. 12. 2002 after obtaining lease of the land admeasuring 468 square meters. In the meantime, a complaint was received against the petitioner from one Sambasiva Rao and the a. P. Pollution Control Board also issued a direction to stop the construction of saw mill by the petitioner. However, the petitioner commenced the construction of saw mill without obtaining permission as required under Section 264 of the a. P. Municipalities Act ( the Act for brevity ). The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 4. 12. 2002 under Sections 42 (1) and 43 (1) of A. P. Urban Area (Development) Act, 1975 requiring the petitioner to submit an explanation within 5 days. The petitioner did not do so. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with the impugned notice dated 1. 2. 2003 requiring him to remove the unauthorized constructions. It is also alleged that the petitioner avoided service of the said notice till 7. 4. 2003. In the counter affidavit it is also stated that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 214 where under if the Commissioner fails to reject or sanction approval within the period prescribed under Sections 212 and 213 of the Act, it shall be deemed that such permission is granted as the petitioner s application was rejected before the expiry of 120 days allowed by the statute under Sections 212 read with Section 213 of the Act.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu submits that as per the provisions of Section 214 read with 213, the petitioner is entitled to commence construction if the Commissioner fails to reject the request for sanction of building plan within 60 days. The petitioner has waited for such time and commenced the construction. He also submits that as certified by the commissioner the land is situated in industrial area and the petitioner obtained all permissions like licence from the Inspector of Factories etc. , and therefore the impugned action is invalid.

( 6 ) PER contra, Sri D. Srinivas, submits that as a first step, the application for construction or reconstructing the building made under Section 209 of the Act has to be considered with reference to the provisions of Section 212 of the Act. After approving the building site, which can be within a period of 60 days, the commissioner is given another 60 days t