APHC010067692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3550/2025 Between:

Shaik Mohammed Ibrahim ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following:

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“....to issue a Writ or direction or order one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in taking steps to demolish the Petitioner's shop situated at ward No. 16, Main road, D.No. 10-15-26, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, without issuing any prior notice or following due process of law as illegal. arbitrary, contrary to principles of natural Justice and in violation of Articles of 19(l)g, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps in respect of the Petitioner's shop situated at ward No. 16, Main road. D.No. 10-15-26, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, and to pass…...”

2. The petitioner herein has been running a shop in the name and style of “Classic Ready Made” at ward No.16, D.No.10-15-26, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari by paying rent to the father of the 3^rd respondent herein. After the demise of the father of the 3^rd respondent in the year 2014, the 3^rd respondent had no objection to continue the petitioner herein as a tenant of the said property.

3. While so, as disputes arose between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, the 4^th respondent who is a henchman of the 3^rd respondent claimed to have purchased the subject property; as such, the petitioner has filed a suit vide O.S.No.107 of 2025 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravara against the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Pending the same, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have colluded with the 2^nd respondent, who in turn has initiated steps to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without issuing any notice and without following due process of law. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing learned Standing Counsel has furnished a copy of instructions wherein it is stated that in compliance with the instructions issued by the Executive Authority, the respondent corporation has verified and conducted inspections with regard to the occupied cellar buildings and accordingly, notices under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 were issued to the concerned owners of the buildings instructing them to vacate the occupied cellar space; during which the owner and as well as the tenant (petitioner herein) of the subject property bearing D.No.10-15-26, Classic Readymade Show Room were also issued the said notice directing to remove the shops constructed in the cellar parking and sought explanation as to why action should not be initiated. It is further stated that on 28.01.2025 one Sri. Dhuddupudi Trinadeswarudu made a complaint stating that the petitioner herein has not vacated the said cellar. As such, an inspection was conducted on 28.01.2025 wherein the authorities have identified that the petitioner herein has again encroached the drain on the main road which was removed earlier during the course of a special drive conducted by the RMC officials in collaboration with the traffic police department on 06.11.2024. It is further stated that the petitioner was instructed to vacate the cellar, who has then requested additional time of 15 days to make necessary arrangements for vacating the sa