Point of law: Notices were not served on the same day this Court holds that there is no failure of natural justice or compliance with the provisions of Sections 452 and 636 of the Act.

ORDER :

1. With the consent of both the parties the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing.

2. This Court has heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 5th respondent and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for the GVMC, appearing for the 2nd to 4threspondents. The main answering respondent is the 2ndrespondent, who has filed a detailed counter.

3. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“….to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of “Writ of Mandamus: declaring the notice in Lr.Roc.No.17880/2011/ACP-Ii, dated 06.11.2020 served on the representatives of petitioners on 06.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent invoking Section 636 of APMC Act, 1955 as being illegal, arbitrary, lacking application of mind, in violation of principles of natural justice, in violation of provisions of APMC Act, 1955 and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to set aside the notice in Lr.Roc.No.17880/2011ACP-II dated 06.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

PETITIONERS’ SUBMISSIONS:

4. Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, draws the attention of this Court to the long history of this case. He points out that the petitioners are the owners of 925 Sq.yards of land or 773 Sq.Mtrs., of property situated in Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam. In the said property they are running a hotel in the name and style of Sri Sampath Vinayaka Kamat Hotels. Learned counsel argues that in the year 2011 they had submitted an application to the 2nd respondent-Corporation for approval of the building plan in B.A.No.14472, dated 10.11.2011 seeking permission to construct a temporary AC Sheet roof shed in the said site. As it was neither approved nor rejected, relying upon the deeming provision in the HMC Act viz., Section 437, the petitioners started the construction of the temporary shed. When the 2ndrespondent Corporation sought to demolish the same they filed civil suit in O.S.No.1263 of 2011 before the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, which was decreed on merits in the year 2015. An interim order initially granted was vacated. Thereafter, C.M.A.No.14 of 2012 was also filed and the same was allowed in April, 2012. He, therefore, submits from the date of suit till the decree there was an injunction, later the suit itself was decreed in April, 2015.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in order to protect the subject property and also their customers from dust, rain, heat and pollution they wanted to put another temporary tensile cover (roof) over the existing floor by using flexible and environmental friendly material. This representation was made in July, 2018. Thereafter, learned counsel submits that on 06.11.2020 two notices were served at the same time i.e., at 2.20 p.m., (a) under Sections 452 and 461 of the Municipal Corporation Act and (b) a notice under Section 636 was also served directing the petitioners to remove the deviated portions, unauthorised first floor and also the encroachment on the Government land within 24 hours. Learned counsel relies upon the endorsement made on the said two notices, which are filed as material papers, to argue that they are served at the same moment of time. He submits that the notices are totally contrary to law, rules of natural justice and reflect a clear case of non-application of mind. It is argued by the learned counsel that the section itself mandates a show cause notice and an explanation within a reasonable time. He submits that by giving both the notices at the same moment of time the entire process is vitiated. He also points out that as per t