JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Y.Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for the respondent No.1, Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

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

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Provisional Order purported to be under section 452(1) and 461(1) of MC Act, 1955 and as per Section 115(1) and (2) and 116(1) of APCRDA Act, 2014 vide notice No: 1174/1073/VMC/UC/2022, dated 24.09.2022 received by me on 10.10.2022 followed by a Confirmation Order purported to be under section 452(2) and 461(2) of MC Act, 1955 and under section 115(3) of APCRDA Act, 2014 vide Notice No.1174/1073/VMC/UC/2022, dated 08.10.2022 received by me on 10.10.2022 as illegal and arbitrary, to set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere or demolish the structures approved by the 2nd respondent vide B.A.No.1073/1569/B/VMC/J/2022, dated 18.08.2022 situated at Door No: 74-8/1-4, JD Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of petitioner’s explanation dated 14.10.2022 and to pass such other order or orders may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioner as also the ground of challenge is that the show cause notice/the provisional order dated 24.09.2022 was never served and without affording any opportunity of hearing the impugned order of confirmation was passed.

4. On 04.11.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation emphasized that the notice dated 24.09.202 was sent to the petitioner through registered post and on 08.11.2022, it was submitted that as per the track consignment report, the item delivery was confirmed. Consequently, it was tried to be submitted that the order of confirmation was passed, after affording opportunity of hearing. He had also placed copy of the track consignment report which was taken on record.

5. In view of the contrary submissions as regards service of notice dated 24.09.2022, this Court, on 08.11.2022 passed the following order:-

“Provisional order/notice is dated 24-09-2022 and the confirmation order is dated 08-10-2022 but the submission of the petitioners counsel was that the provisional order/notice dated 24-09-2022 was not served.

On 02-11-2022, Sri G.Naresh Kumar, Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent was granted time to obtain instructions on the point of service of notice of the provisional order on the petitioner or on some other person on behalf of the petitioner, giving the particulars.

Sri G.Naresh based on instructions submits that the provisional order/notice dt.24-09-2022 was sent through Registered post addressed to the petitioner on 26-09-2022 and as per the Track consignment the item delivery was confirmed on 28-09-2022 at 16.46.42.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said notice through registered post was not delivered to the petitioner. He has also placed before the court copy of the Track consignment relating to the same Consignment number and submits that in the copy placed before the Court by the Respondent No.2, one entry dt.28-09-2022 at 12.36.05 mentioning the event “item delivered (To BABA TP SECTION VMC (Article Receipt Room)]” is not reflected which finds mention in the copy placed by him, though in both the Track consignment reports there is entry dated 28-09-2022, at 16.46.42 of the event ‘item delivery confirmed’.

The copies of the Track consignment placed before this court are taken on record.

In view of the aforesaid, Sri G.