A satisfactory explanation offered by the owner of an unauthorized construction must be considered before proceeding with demolition, and demolition should not be resorted to if the deviations are minor, minimal, or trivial and do not affect public interest or safety.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri K. Ravi, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Katta Sudhakar, learned AGP for Municipal Administration, representing respondent No.1, Sri G. Naresh Kumar, representing Sri M. Manohara Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.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 Notices bearing No.871/1073/VMC//UC/2022, dtd. 11/8/2022 and 871/1073/VMC/UC/2022, dtd. 23/8/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent wholly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioners are not liable for demolition of the building constructed by the petitioners and pass such other order or orders....."

4. Sri K. Ravi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dtd. 11/8/2022 has been passed without application of mind and in cyclostyle manner. He submits that the 1st paragraph of the impugned order mentions that the petitioner did not file any reply to the show cause notice/the provisional order, whereas in the second paragraph it has been mentioned that the reply given by the petitioner is not satisfactory and contrary to provisions of rules in force. He submits that the reply was filed by the petitioner on 1/8/2022 though admitting that there were some minor deviations and that he will regularize the same in future. He further submits that the order was passed under Sec. 452 (2) & 461(2) of APMC Act 1955 and under Sec. 115(3) of APCRDA Act, 2014, which is revisionable under Sec. 679 of the APMC Act 1955 and also appealable under Sec. 115 (7) of APCRDA Act 2014 for which there is period of limitation of 15 days from the date of service of the order which was served on 16/8/2022 which has not yet expired, but in spite thereof, the officials of the respondents 2 and 3 are approaching the subject property of the petitioners for demolition.

5. Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that though in the first paragraph of the impugned order dtd. 11/8/2022 it is mentioned that the petitioner did not file reply, but his reply was considered as is evident from the second paragraph of the order. He further submits that in the reply dtd. 1/8/2022 the petitioner admitted the deviations and so far as regularization is concerned, there are no rules and no scheme for the present. With respect to the petitioners' right to appeal, the same has not been disputed as also that the period of limitation has not expired, but he submits that the Tribunal under the said Act before which the appeal lies, has not been constituted.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties.

7. A perusal of the impugned order dtd. 11/8/2022, clearly shows non-application of mind. In the first paragraph it is stated that the reply was not submitted and in the second paragraph it is mentioned that the reply given is not satisfactory and that too without disclosing any reason as to how and why the explanation of the petitioners was not satisfactory. The order as passed is a cyclostyle order. The explanation offered by the petitioners ought to have been considered.

8. In Poonamchand v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,2013 (2) ALT 517 (S.B) this Court has held in para-7 as under:

"7.A perusal of the impugned notice shows that respondent No. 1 has not dealt with the explanation of the petitioner and has rejected the same with a cryptic observation that the same is not satisfactory and "it may not be considered". In the opinion of this Court, the very purpose of issuing a notice under Sec. 452(1) of the Act is to give an opp