ORDER:

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

“…to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the issuance of notice ROC.No.G-1/70/2013-(1) dated 18.04.2013 under Sections 192 and 194 of the A.P Municipalities Act, 1965 by the respondent as is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and without following due process of law and declare the petitioner’s construction of the house bearing No.2-2-289/2, situated at Shanti Nagar, Tandur, R.R District as deemed permission under the A.P. Municipal Act. Consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the petitioner’s house mentioned above and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality, for respondent No.1 and Mr. K. Sai Varun- Indus Law Firm, for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings, including the notice dated 30.03.2013, have been issued on the premise that the petitioner has encroached upon a portion of the alleged 60 feet road to an extent of 9 x 29 feet. It is further contended that the said allegation is baseless and that the Master Plan itself was not within the knowledge of the petitioner.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation on 18.02.2012, bringing to the notice of respondent No.1 all factual aspects, specifically contending that the construction is not an encroachment on any public road. Despite the said explanation, the respondent authority, without conducting any proper enquiry and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to issue the impugned notice, which is bereft of any reasons and is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1-Municipality by reiterating the grounds in the counter affidavit would contend that respondent No.1 has issued final notice vide Lr.No.G1/70/2011 on 30.03.2013 and that the petitioner has submitted his objections. Thereafter, based on the earlier notice, another final notice was issued vide Roc No.G1/70/2013 on 18.04.2013. He would further submit that the neighbor of the petitioner has raised no objection. He also points out that Respondent No.2 is residing at Indira Nagar, which is 2 Kms away from the subject house of the petitioner and respondent No.1 is not aware of the fact that whether any other person instigating the petitioner to file false complaints and to extract money. In that view of the matter, learned Standing Counsel would contend that since the explanation was found unsatisfactory, the impugned proceedings have been issued.

6. Be that as it may, when the explanation has been submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.1 ought to have duly considered the same and passed a reasoned final order before contemplating any action. However, a perusal of the impugned proceedings reveals that there is no indication of any consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner.

7. In that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings are devoid of merits and bereft of any reasons, and the proceedings are liable to be set-aside.

8. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 18.04.2013 is set-aside.

9. However, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, conduct a physical inspection and if it is found that any portion of the public road as notified in the master plan has been encroached upon by the petitioner, take appropriate steps for its removal by passing a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

10. With the above directions this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending,