Disposed

A Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Jul 2022WP/3703/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two writ petitions involving removal orders for illegal structures in a commercial complex. The court directed the Municipal Corporation to consider the building owner's representation for regularization within two weeks, subjecting the removal order to the corporation's decision if regularization is granted, and to proceed as per the order if rejected.

What did the court decide?

The Municipal Corporation directed to consider the owner's representation for regularization within two weeks; removal order subject to outcome.

A Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.3703 OF 2022 AND 3394 OF 2022

¶3

COMMON ORDER:-

¶4

As both the writ petitions related to same issue and are more in the nature of cross suits, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

The commercial complex known as Ucon Shoppe was constructed in Kurnool town. The petitioner in W.P. No.3703 of 2022 is the President of Welfare Association of occupiers of that complex. It is stated that about 150 such persons are members of the welfare association. It is the case of the petitioner, in W.P. No.3703 of 2022 that various persons have constructed kiosks and small bunks illegally and are conducting their business in and around the said building. It is stated by the petitioner that on account of these illegal constructions, and the business being carried out by these persons, the entire area has become blocked and the business of the legitimate occupants of the building has been totally affected.

¶6

The owners welfare association is said to have given a complaint to the Municipal Corporation on 12.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 for removal of the said structures. The Municipal Corporation is said to have issued notices to all the persons who have illegally constructed kiosks and bunks calling upon them to show cause why these structures should not be removed and subsequently, passed final orders directing removal of these structures. Aggrieved by the said final orders, some of the persons who have received final orders, approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.3394 of 2022.

¶7

¶8

It is the contention of the petitioners in W.P. No.3394 of 2022 that the notices relating to these structures have been served on the owner of the property, who had subsequently replied to the said notices stating that the construction of these structures does not in any manner obstruct free flow of traffic, cause any inconvenience to any person. The petitioners further submits that despite this explanation, the 2^nd respondent Corporation had persisted in removing the structures after passing final orders.

¶9

In addition to the above submissions, the petitioners also submit that they would be protected under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. Apart from this, the petitioners also contended that the owner of the building, who is 3^rd respondent herein, had already applied for regularization of these structures under the Building Penalization Scheme given by the 2^nd respondent Municipality Corporation.

¶10

Sri Kalva Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for Respondent Corporation has filed a counter affidavit and submits that the owner of the building had only given a representation and the same was not an application under the Building Penalization Scheme. He would further submit that the Street Vendors’ Act does not in any manner protect the illegal structures constructed by the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition and as such the petitioners cannot claim any protection under the said Act.

¶11

Heard Sri G.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.3703 of 2022, Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.3394 of 2022 and Sri Kalava Sureshkumar

¶12

¶13

Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent Corporation in both the writ petitions.

¶14

A perusal of the record shows that the impugned final orders in W.P. No.3394 of 2022 have been passed after giving due opportunity to the 3^rd respondent, who is owner of the building. In view of the fact that final orders have been passed after due consideration of the objections of the 3^rd respondent, it cannot be said that there is any violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the fact remains that the petitioners in W.P. No.3394 of 2022 are relying upon the representation of the 3^rd respondent, for regularization of these structures. This Court would also notice that this representation has not been filed under the Building Penalization Scheme. However, as the matter relates to all these petitioners, and with a view to balance the interest of the petitioner in W.P. No.3703 of 2022 with the interest of the petitioners in W.P. No.3394 of 2022, it would be appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions with the following directions:

¶15

1. The respondent Municipal Corporation shall consider the representation given by the 3^rd respondent, in W.P. No.3394 of 2022, and take appropriate decision in the matter within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶16

1. In the event of the respondent Corporation accepting the application for regularization, the order impugned in W.P. No.3394 of 2022 shall be subject to the decision of the respondent corporation.

¶17

1. In the event of respondent Corporation rejecting the request of the 3^rd respondent in W.P. No.3394 of 2022, it would be open

¶18

¶19

to the respondent Corporation to take action in accordance

¶20

with the order impugned in W.P. No.3394 of 2022.

¶21

1. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶22

__________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶23

Date:12.07.2022 knl

¶24

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION Nos.3703 OF 2022 AND 3394 OF 2022

¶27

Date: 12.07.2022

¶28

knl

A Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venigalla Siva Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kilari Madhava Rao Vs G.K.Dwivedi

Adapala Ramu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Busa Krishnarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Minnu Mobiles, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Puli Bramha Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh