JUDGMENT

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. - The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

"... to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing impugned confirmation order vide U.C.Notice No.229/1075/ELR/UC/2021 dtd. 23/9/2022 under Sec. 454(2) and 461(2) OF AMPC ACT, 1955 and UNDER Sec. 86, 89(3) OF APMR and UDA ACT, 2016 thereby making arrangments to demolish petitioners building situated at D.NO.24B-1-55 of papa saheb road street/colony, RR peta area, Eluru Municipal Corporation, West Godavari District without considering the reply dtd. 5/7/2021 to the provisional order 12/5/2021 and also the reply dtd. 4/10/2022 issued against the impugned confirmation order dtd. 23/9/2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice article 21, 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned confirmation order vide U.C.Notice No.229/1075/ELR/UC/2021 dtd. 23/9/2022 under Sec. 454(2) and 461(2) OF AMPC ACT, 1955 and UNDER Sec. 86, 89(3) OF APMR and UDA ACT, 2016 thereby making arrangments to demolish petitioners building situated at D.NO.24B-1-55 of papa saheb road street/colony, RR peta area, Eluru Municipal Corporation, West Godavari District and to pass such other order or orders...."

2. In the affidavit it was contended that the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent-Corporation issued notice vide U.C.Notice No.229/1075/ELR/UC/2021 dtd. 23/9/2022 under Sec. 454(2) and 461(2) OF Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and under Sec. 86, 89(3) OF Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Act, 2016, pointing out certain deviations. Petitioner submitted explanation on 5/7/2021. Conformation order dtd. 23/9/2022 was passed by the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent-Corporation. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri P.Aditya Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The order impugned is consisting of two paragraphs. Relevant portion in first paragraph of the order dtd. 23/9/2022 reads as follows:

"...But, you have neither pulled down the the unauthorized construction nor submitted any reply to the show cause notice till date. Therefore, you are liable for issue of confirmation order Under Sec. 454(2) and 461(2) OF Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and under Sec. 86, 89(3) OF Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Act, 2016."

Relevant portion in the second paragraph reads as follows: "Sir/Smt JVV Satyanarayana has submitted a reply to the above said show cause notice. But the reply given is not satisfactory and contrary to provisions of rules is in force."

5. Thus, a perusal of the two paragraphs referred to supra, in the first instance, would discern that the authority is not clear as to whether petitioner submitted the explanation or not. Even the later part of the order, does not discern consideration of explanation by the authority.

6. Whenever an explanation is submitted to the notice, the authority should consider the explanation objectively. The authority must form its opinion after duly considering the material before it. The word 'consider' means to think over.

7. The word '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 autho