The court noted that unauthorized construction may be regularized under existing rules if deviations are minor, requiring proper procedures for addressing complaints.

ORDER :

HARINATH.N, J.

1. The petitioner in WP.No.12184 of 2024 has challenged in-action on part of the 2nd respondent in not considering the complaint of the petitioner against the illegal construction of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in D.No.1-14-6, SBI Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

2. WP.No.14603 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of the building permitted order granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

3. WP.No.15771 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners alleging interference on part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the pretext of constructing in deviation with the sanctioned plan and calling upon the petitioners to stop construction without passing any orders.The writ petitioner in WP.No.12184 of 2024and 14603 of 2025 is arrayed as respondent No.4. The petitioners herein are arrayed as respondents 4 and 5 in WP.No.12184 and 14603 of 2025.

4. All the three writ petitions relate to the construction of a building at D.No.1-14-6, SBI Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam. As such, these writ petitions can be disposed off by a common order. WP.No.12184 of 2024 is argued as a lead case by Sri.G.V.L.Ramana Murthy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri.A.S.C.Bose, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipality.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the neighbour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and has complained about the unauthorized construction undertaken by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 over the neighbouring plot bearing No.1-14-6. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are constructing a hospital like building without obtaining any permission. The primary allegation is that the respondents 4 and 5 indulged in construction of a building in an unauthorized manner without leaving any set backs.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner also filed WP.No.3200 of 2024 aggrieved by the inaction on part of the official respondents in taking action against the illegal construction. The writ petition was disposed off after recording the submissions of learned standing counsel that appropriate action would be taken against the deviations if any and a further direction to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take necessary steps in accordance with law.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.03.2024, 30.04.2024 and again during the first week of May, 2024. It is also submitted that inspite of receiving repeated representations there was no action on part of the official respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and sought copy of the sanctioned plan if any granted in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and other details. The RTI Application was not properly answered by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

8. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has granted permission for construction of four floors in land admeasuring 259.99 Square yards. The learned senior counsel further submits that the respondents 4 and 5 have sought for permission to construct a building and are now proposing to set up a hospital/Nursing Home which is not permissible under the Building Rules, 2017. The minimum extent of area recorded for setting up a hospital or nursing home is 300 square meters. The land of the respondents 4 and 5 is less than 300 square meters. As such, the official respondents o