Administrative decisions must observe due process by considering submitted objections from parties involved.

lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR (SPECIA-L ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 14258 OF 2025 Between:

Varanasi Prathapa Ready, S/o. RaJ-a Reddy Aged about 42 years, Occ Doctor R/o. D.NO.7/347-15-C4, Near Mohana Hospital, Simhapuri Colony, Kadapa, Y.S.R District.

...Petitioner AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its principal secretary, Municipal Administration and urban Development Department A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, AP.

2. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa City, Y.S.R District, rep., by its Commissioner.

3. The Town Planning Officer, Kadapa Municipal Corporation Kadapa City,`

Y.S.R District.

...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayI-ng that in the circumstances stated in the affI-davit filed therewI-th, the High Court may be Pleased tO issue appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Confirmation Order in Notice NO.119/1O13/KDP/UC/2025, dated 04.06.2025 served on me on o9.06,2025 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 452(2) and 461(2) r/w 428 and 429 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and under Section 89(3) of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitian Region and urban Development Authority Act,2016 stating that, the reply submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory and thereby ordering me to pull down the construction raised by him in the premises bearing D.No.2/713-1, NagarajuapIIe Street, Dhobighat area, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Y.S.R District without recording reasons for arriving to such conclusion, as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to him under Articles,14,19, 21 and 300-Aofthe Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.

lANO: 1 OF2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Confirmation Order in Notice No.119/1013/KDP/UC/2025, dateci 04.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.2, Pending disposal of WP 14258 of

2025, on the file of the High Court.

The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI V R REDDY KOWURI Advocate for the Petitioner, and of GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV, for the Respondent No.1, and of SRI P.VENGALA REDDY, Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3, the Court made the following ORDER:

Heard Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner®

The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically asserted that consequent to the notice, datecI 30.09.2023, issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner herein preferred a detailec[ explanation, datecl

10.10.2023, by way of Registered post with Acknowledgment Due. Till today, no orders passed by the 2nd respondent.

Be that as it may, all of a sudden, the impugned notice bearI-ng No.119/1013/KDP/UC/2025, dated o4.06.2025, was issued by the 2nd respondent, without taking jn1:o account the specific objections, dated 10.10.2023, submitted by the petitioner, I-n a cursory way, impugned orders were issued.

Hence, both parties are directed to maintain sfafus qt,o, for a Period Of four (04) weeks.

In the meanwh[-[e, the 2nd respondent is directed to file counteff affidavit.

Post the matter after four (o4) weeks.

SD/- M.SRINIVAS A ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY//

sECT!ON OFFICER For AS _.`-T{

To]

1. The principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and urban Development Department, state of Andhra pr