Non-consideration of the petitioner's explanation by the authority violates principles of natural justice and the right to property guaranteed under Art 300A of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. - Challenging the order dtd. 13/12/2023 directing the petitioner to remove the building compound wall within 24 hours from the date of receipt the order without considering the representation/explanation dtd. 4/11/2023 of the petitioner the writ petition is filed.

2. (a) Notice vide RDP No.9/2022/ACP-III&IV/G1, dtd. 7/8/2023 was issued by the 3rd respondent to the Branch Manager of the petitioner to produce relevant documents for issuance of compensation and TDR as per Rules since the property of the petitioner admeasuring 983 Sq.yds is affecting in MP road widening. Explanation was submitted on 22/8/2023 to the Zonal Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakahapatnam (for short GVMC"). The Zonal Commissioner again issued notice vide RDP No.9/2022/ACP-III & IV/G1, dtd. 29/8/2023 to handover the affected portion to GVMC by way of consent and relevant documents i.e., notarized affidavit, legal heirs etc. Notice under Sec. 635 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short GHMC Act") was issued by the Assistant City Planner, Zone-III, GVMC. Zonal Commissioner issued notice vide Notice No.01/2023/ACPIII/TPS/Ward-21, dtd. 7/10/2023 directing the petitioner to submit explanation within three (3) days as to why the building is not removed, altered or pull down the unauthorized construction under HMC Act.

(b) It was averred in the affidavit that W.P.No.26668 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner and the same was disposed of on 11/10/2023. While disposing of the writ petition, the petitioner is directed to submit explanation within two (2) weeks. The authorities are directed to enquire by giving opportunity of hearing and to pass orders within eight (8) weeks. The petitioner submitted representation/explanation on 4/11/2023. Thereafter, the order dtd. 13/12/2023, impugned in the writ petition, was issued by the 3rd respondent and the same was received by the authorised representative of the petitioner on the same day. Hence, the above writ petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Ghanta Ramarao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. As seen from the material available on record, in the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it was pointed out that the building was constructed about 70 years back. It was also pointed out about the Andhra Pradesh Regulation and Penalization of Unauthorisedly Constructed Building and Buildings constructed in Deviation of the Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2007 (2007 Rules) and the Andhra Pradesh Regulation and Penalization of Buildings Constructed unauthorizedly and in Deviation of the Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2015 (2015 Rules). It was specifically contended in the explanation that the building was constructed about 70 years much prior to the HMC Act came into existence.

5. As can be seen from the order impugned, it neither indicates affording of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner nor consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

6. The words consider" was analyzed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors v. A Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530. and held thus:

"19. The word "consider" is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its o