JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Vangala Sailaja, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for the respondent No.1 and Sri K.Srinivasulu Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.2, Srikakulam Urban Development Authority.

2. With the consent of the parties counsels, the writ petition is being decided finally at this stage.

3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-

“It is therefore just and essential that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Roc.No.194/2022/Buildings/SUDA, dated 05.09.2022 and Rc.No.194/Buildings/SUDA, dated 05.11.2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India, besides directing not to proceed further and pass such other orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings Roc.No.194/2022/Buildings/SUDA, dated 05.09.2022 and Roc.No.194/Buildings/SUDA, dated 05.11.2022 both issued by the respondent No.2.

5. By the proceedings dated 05.09.2022, the petitioner's application for regularization of row of shops constructed in an extent of Ac.0.22 cents filed under Section 90-A of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (in short, ‘the Act 2016’) was rejected.

6. The petitioner's representation filed against the order dated 05.09.2022, was rejected by the endorsement dated 05.11.2022.

7. Earlier the petitioner filed W.P.No.17688 of 2022, being aggrieved from the action of the Vadrangi Gram Panchayat in issuing provisional order for demolition of the constructions in question.

8. Another W.P.No.26474 of 2021 was filed by the third party seeking demolition of the alleged unauthorized construction of the petitioner as no action was being taken by the concerned Gram Panchayat.

9. W.P.No.27464 of 2021 was dismissed and W.P.No.17688 of 2021 was disposed of, leaving it open to the present petitioner to avail the remedy available under Section 90-A of the Act, 2016 within specified period, with further direction that if said application was filed the same shall be considered, decided and disposed of by the authority in accordance with law. This Court further provided that the concerned Gram Panchayat shall not take any action against the petitioner, till such application was disposed of.

10. The operative portion in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment dated 05.08.2022, is reproduced as under:-

“34. Consequently, W.P.No.26474 of 2021 is dismissed and W.P.No.17688 of 2021 is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the remedy available under Section 90-A of the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 within a period of two weeks from today. Any application filed by the petitioner, in this regard, would be considered and disposed of by the said authority, in accordance with law and the Gram Panchayath shall not take any action against the petitioner till such an application is disposed of. The Respondents shall then act in accordance with the decision taken in the application filed under section 90-A of the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016.

35. In the event of the petitioner failing to avail this remedy within the stipulated time, it would be open to the respondent Gram Panchayat to take further action in accordance with law. The record files produced by the learned Government pleader for Panchayat Raj, shall be returned to him. There shall be no order as to costs.”

11. The petitioner filed the application on 16.08.2022 for regularization under Section 90-A of the Act, 2016, which has been rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 05.09.2022.

12. As per the impugned order the p