Constructions raised in violation and disobedience of the interim orders of the court cannot be permitted to remain in existence. To uphold the majesty of law, the acts done by the petitioners in disobedience of the court's order are required to be undone.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in the writ petition No.17520 of 2020. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri had submitted that he had instructions from the petitioners to appear and argue on their behalf and that he shall file Vakalat within two days. He was permitted to argue on the said representation.

2. Sri Abhay Siddnath Mootha, learned counsel on record for the petitioners was also heard who had adopted the arguments of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri.

3. Also heard Sri C. Suman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

4. Perused the material on record.

5. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the Notice/proceedings in R.C.U.C.No.2/2020/WPRS/188, dated /08/2020 issued by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District (in short, V.M.C) directing the petitioners to remove the deviations in construction of the building as indicated in the notice/proceedings within the specified time, failing which it was provided that those deviations shall be removed/pulled down by the authorities of the V.M.C and the incidental costs thereof shall be recovered from the petitioners.

6. The petitioners further prayed to stay all further proceedings including the demolition of the petitioners" building, and to restrain the V.M.C from stopping the petitioners from raising further construction pursuant to the impugned notice proceedings.

7. This Court granted the interim order dtd. 28/9/2020 which reads as under:-

"Post on 30/9/2020. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained in respect of the construction of the building in dispute. Further, the respondent authorities shall not take any steps for demolition. Meanwhile, learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation shall get instructions in the matter."

8. It is evident that this court by order dtd. 28/9/2020 directed both the parties to maintain status quo, existing as on that date in respect of the construction of the building in dispute and further the respondent authorities were directed not to take any steps for demolition upto 30/9/2020. On 13/10/2020, the interim order was extended till 20/10/2020.

9. In the present writ petition and in W.P.No.17881 of 2020 filed by Smt Monika Solanki with respect to different building in the same campus for which also the proceedings were initiated by issuing the notice in R.C.U.C.No.4/2020/WPRS/188, dated /08/2020, on 22/10/2020, 24/11/2020, 8/12/2020, 22/12/2020, 22/1/2021, 5/2/2021, 23/2/2021, 23/3/2021, 30/3/2021, 20/4/2021, 22/9/2021, 29/9/2021, 4/10/2021, 22/10/2021, the common orders were passed. Both the writ petitions were being taken up together.

10. Sri C. Subodh, the learned Advocate Commissioner, hereinafter referred as the 1st Advocate Commissioner, appointed vide order dtd. 6/10/2020 in W.P.No.1881 of 2020, submitted his report dtd. 19/10/2020.

11. On 22/10/2020, this Court passed the following order:-

"The report of the Advocate Commissioner was filed in this Court along with sketch. This Court has posted the matter today to hear the objections of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the municipal corporation. Petitioners counsel has made some legal and factual submissions which in the opinion of this court merit further hearing. As the vacation is intervening from tomorrow and as the report along with sketch indicates that there are deviations, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners should be directed to completely halt all further activity and / or construction of the building in the site till 5/11/2020. Learned counsels are given an opportunity to file their written objections, if any, to the Advocate Commissioner's report and the sketch. They are also given liberty to argue on the legal aspects. Respondents are directed to depute a responsible official t