Remanded

Neelam Santosh Ranganath v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jun 2023WP/14235/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a notice alleging construction deviations, the Court held that the authority must provide an opportunity for a hearing. The Court directed the Corporation to proceed with an inquiry and stay coercive steps pending the result.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given one week to submit explanation; Corporation directed to hold inquiry within two months; coercive steps stayed pending inquiry outcome.

Neelam Santosh Ranganath Vs the State of Ap — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.14235 of 2023

¶4

Neelam Santosh Ranganath, S/o. Srinivas, Age 44 years, Asst.Professor, R/o.MIC.182, APHB Colony, Srikakulam Town & Corporation, Srikakulam.

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and 2 others.

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned notice dated 08.06.2023 alleging that, there are deviations in construction of the building by the petitioner deviating from the permit No.1085/0390/B/SRI/NNY/2022 dated 09.10.2022. Hence, the petitioner is called for submission of his explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the impugned notice dated

¶12

¶13

08.06.2023, failing which, the appropriate action will be taken by removing the said deviations of construction in the said building premises.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner took building permission vide proceedings dated 09.10.2022 and in accordance with the same, he is proceeding with the construction in the premises bearing D.No/Plot No.MIG-182 of APHB Colony OPP-ZP Street/Colony APHB Colony area within the limits of 2^nd respondent-corporation. While so, on the false complaint said to have been given by the neighbour of the said premises, without verifying the facts and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner at the threshold straight away issued the impugned notice dated 08.06.2023 under Section 452 (1) and 461 (1) of APMC Act, 1955 r/w Sections 86, 89 (1 & 2), 90 (1) of APMR & UDA Act, 2016.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the deviations said to have been made as mentioned in the table column of the impugned notice are not correct and the petitioner is strictly proceeding in accordance with the permission given to the petitioner for the subject construction as per the permit dated 09.10.2022 only. If the authorities inspected the premises in the presence of the petitioner, he can explain the same on the site itself. But there was no such

¶16

¶17

opportunity before serving the impugned notice dated 08.06.2023 and 09.06.2023 to the petitioner. Even then, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.06.2023 but the same is not considered by the 2^nd respondent-corporation. That apart, they are trying to remove the constructions on the ground that, the petitioner has committed violations which is not permissible under law.

¶18

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that, the representation said to have been given on 12.06.2023 is not acknowledged by the Corporation and there is no stamp and seal by the Corporation and as such, it is very doubtful whether any such representation is placed before the corporation by the petitioner.

¶19

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, since the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 08.06.2023 is in the form of notice only, there shall be an opportunity for the petitioner to submit an explanation along with the supporting documents for the purpose of participation in the enquiry as contemplated under law pursuant to the impugned notice dated 08.06.2023. For which, the petitioner is given permission to submit his explanation along with the necessary documents within one (01) week from the date of

¶20

¶21

receipt of this order. On receipt of such explanation along with the necessary enclosures, the 2^nd respondent-corporation is directed to proceed with the enquiry as contemplated under law pursuant to the impugned notice dated 08.06.2023 by giving opportunity to all the parties concerned including the petitioner and upon verification of the records and the subject site, the appropriate decision shall be taken on it’s own merits within a period of two (02) months thereafter. Till such time, there shall not be any coercive steps with respect to the subject construction pending enquiry only subject to outcome of the enquiry, the 2^nd respondent-corporation is authorized to pass appropriate orders with regard to the construction of the subject building in terms of Permit No.1085/0390/B/SRI/NNY/2022 dated 09.10.2022. The construction shall be in accordance with the Permit No.1085/0390/B/SRI/NNY/2022 dated 09.10.2022.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶25

19.06.2023 PGT

Neelam Santosh Ranganath v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Santosh Ranganath v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Builders Vs the State of Ap

K. Rama Chandra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppu Tirupataiah Vs the State of Ap

MD Avez Baig Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vinukonda Jaya Vs the State of Ap

Mahendra Pushpa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh