ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for 1st respondent and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, for respondents 2 and 3.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the order dated 22.11.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent, and the provisional order, dated 09.09.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent, are contrary to law, arbitrary and discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice and consequently, sought a direction to the respondents not to demolish the building of the petitioner bearing D.No.7-16-226, Srinagar Colony, Guntur.

3. As per the case pleaded by the petitioner, it is his case that he has purchased 87.6 sq. yards of land situate at Srinagar Colony, Guntur, under a registered sale deed, dated 01.01.2019 and constructed an R.C.C. building for residential purpose in the said land. When he approached municipal authorities for grant of building permission that he was informed by the employees of the Municipal Corporation that there is no necessity to obtain building permission for construction of a building in a land admeasuring less than 100 sq. metres. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has constructed the building without obtaining any building permission. The petitioner has constructed the building consisting of G+1 and a small shed.

4. Thereafter, 2nd respondent – Commissioner of Guntur Municipal Corporation, issued show-cause notice, dated 26.02.2020 under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, on the ground that the petitioner has constructed the said building without obtaining the building permission. A notice dated 19.08.2021 was also issued subsequently directing the petitioner to demolish the building within three days on the ground that it was constructed without obtaining building permission from the Corporation. The petitioner questioned the said notices before this Court in W.P.No.18590 of 2021. This Court in the said Writ Petition passed an interim order suspending the notice dated 19.08.2021, as per order passed on 27.08.2021.

5. Whileso, a provisional order dated 09.09.2021 was again issued by the 2nd respondent under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) r/w.428 and 429 of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and under Sections 89(1)&(2) r/w.Secs.82, 90(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (APMR & UDA Act) to remove the alleged unauthorised construction of the building within seven days. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice, which is dated 20.09.2021. However, without considering the said explanation submitted by the petitioner, it is stated that the impugned order was passed for demolition of the building in question.

6. The impugned order is now questioned before this Court primarily on two grounds. That the impugned order was passed without considering the detailed explanation that was submitted by the petitioner and as such, the impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice and it is bad under law. Secondly, that when a Writ Petition questioning the earlier similar notice that was issued is pending before this Court and when this Court has already suspended the similar notice that was earlier issued and when the matter is sub judice before this Court that the respondents are not justified in issuing another notice for demolition of the building and as such, the impugned notice is bad in law on the said two grounds.

7. As regards the first ground is concerned, the petitioner has produced copy of the postal receipt, which is available at page No.26 of the material papers and the postal acknowledgement, which is available at page No.27 of the material papers, in proof of the fact that explanation to the notice was submitted to the municipal authorities. Copy of the said explanation is also produ