Disposed

Kancharapu Aruna Kumari v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Oct 2023WP/16826/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging inaction regarding unauthorized construction was disposed of. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to the Municipal Corporation, directing it to issue a notice and pass a reasoned order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to submit representation; direction to issue show-cause notice; pass reasoned order within three months.

Kancharapu Aruna Kumari Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 16826 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, under Article 226 of

¶5

the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:

¶6

“..... to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not taking any action pursuant to notice dated 04.10.2021 and allowing illegal constructions against the sanction plan vide proceedings No.13 (5) dated 16.03.2018 above the 2^nd floor in Sy.No.278/3 of the complex titled as Sai Enclave at Balaga Village, Srikakulam Mandal & District, is against the law, untenable, deliberate, intentional, motivated, unsustainable, illegal and unconstitutional as well as against the principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents to demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction made on the third floor against the sanctioned plan No.13 (5) dated 16.03.2018 and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶7

The short grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioners against the 5^th respondent for making unauthorized constructions on the third floor of Sai Enclave at Balaga Village, Srikakulam Mandal & District, having issued a notice dated 04.10.2021 to the 5^th respondent, the official respondents have not taken any further action against the 5^th respondent so far.

¶8

RC,J W.P.No.16826 of 2023

¶9

¶10

Heard Sri Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel, representing Sri K.B. Ramannadora, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 4^th respondent-Municipal Corporation.

¶11

Learned standing counsel for the 4^th respondent-Municipal Corporation, on the written instructions of the Commissioner, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, dated 03.10.2023, submitted that the petitioners made a representation to the then Chapuram Grampanchayat against the 5^th respondent and recently, the said Grampanchayat has been merged with the 4^th respondent-Municipal Corporation; that the 4^th respondent is not aware of the alleged unauthorised construction made by the 5^th respondent as well as the representation of the petitioners or the notice dated 04.10.2021 said to have been issued by the Grampanchayat to the 5^th respondent; and that if the petitioners submit a representation to the 4^th respondent, the authorities will take steps, in accordance with law.

¶12

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to submit a representation to the 4^th respondent-corporation for initiation of further action.

¶13

RC,J W.P.No.16826 of 2023

¶14

¶15

In view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the 4^th respondent-Municipal Corporation and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to make a detailed representation to the 4^th respondent-Municipal Corporation against the unauthorised construction said to be made by the 5^th respondent, and on receipt of such representation, the 4^th respondent-Municipal Corporation is directed to issue an appropriate show-cause-notice to the 5^th respondent calling upon him to submit an explanation. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent shall pass a detailed reasoned order, in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioners, and communicate the same to the petitioners. No order as to costs.

¶16

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.

¶17

_______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶18

18^th October, 2023 cbs

¶19

RC,J W.P.No.16826 of 2023

¶20

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶22

Writ Petition No.16826 of 2023

¶23

RC,J W.P.No.16826 of 2023

¶24

¶25

18^th October, 2023

¶26

cbs

Kancharapu Aruna Kumari v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kancharapu Aruna Kumari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chalamalasetty Lakshmi Parvathi Vs the State of Ap

Penchela Kasturi Vs Union of India

Boyapati Vara Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sandhyavalli Vinjamuri Vs Union of India

M/S Kanaka Durga Rice Mill, Vs the State of Ap

Burugupalli Lakshmipathi Vs the State of Ap