JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned GP for Municipal Administration, representing respondent No. 1 and Sri G. Naresh Kumar, representing Sri M. Manohara Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage without calling for counter affidavit.

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

“.....to declare the Notice No. 85/1075/ELR//UC2021, dated 12.08.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent confirming the show cause notice dated 12.05.2021 and directed petitioner to bring the construction covered by D. No. 23B-5-2/1 situated in Edaravari Street, Revenue Ward No. 26, RR Peta, Eluru, West Godavari District into the rule frame within 7 days as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1995 and consequently command the respondents not to take any coercive steps of demolitions, in any manner, in the interests of justice and pass such other order or orders....”

4. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and is in possession of house site admeasuring 1050 sq. yards covered by D. No. 23B-5-2/1 situated in Edaravari street, Revenue Ward No. 26, RR Peta, Eluru, West Godavari District. Pursuant to the petitioner’s application dated 10.10.2018, the 2nd respondent granted building permission vide Permit No. 1075/0339/B/ELR/RRPet/2018, dated 30.10.2018 for construction of G+5 floors and though the petitioner raised only G+4 floors but as per the sanctioned plan. The 2nd respondent issued a provisional order/notice under Section 452 (1) and 461 (1) of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1965, (in short ‘MC Act 1965’) and under sections 86, 89 (1&2), 90(1) of A.P. Metropolitan Regional and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016, which Act of 2016, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application, giving details of the deviations/violations identified in the tabular form and asking the petitioner to submit reply as to why the deviations/violations could not be removed/altered or pulled down within specified time, failing which, it will be treated as a continuous and intentional offence and further action will be taken as per the provisions mentioned in the provisional order.

5. The petitioner submitted reply dated 16.07.2021, Ex.P3, acknowledging the show cause notice/provisional order, and submitting that due to some ‘Vastu’ complaints there is some deviation in the construction and requested in effect and substance that as per the Government norms and the regularization scheme, the petitioner is willing to pay for regularization of such deviations. The 2nd respondent through its Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 12.08.2022, Ex.P5, confirming the provisional order. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed.

6. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice/provisional order, but in the impugned order, in the first paragraph, it is incorrectly mentioned that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice, whereas in the last paragraph, it has been mentioned that the reply given is not satisfactory, which as such contains contradictory statements. He further submits that the petitioner’s reply, in fact, has not been considered, in as much as the petitioner’s prayer for regularization of deviations shown in the show cause notice/provisional order has not been considered at all, but the order merely states that the reply given is not satisfactory which is in fact no consideration and frustrates the purpose of giving the notice and filing of reply.

7. Sri P. Rajasekhar further submits that the deviations as mentioned in the provisional order da