Remanded

Karri Pavan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2024WP/4176/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition challenging a notice cancelling a shop license and directing eviction. The court held the notice should be treated as a show-cause notice, directed the authority to consider the petitioner's explanation within three weeks, and suspended coercive action pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

The respondent directed to consider the petitioner's explanation within three weeks and refrain from taking any coercive action in the meantime.

Karri Pavan Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 4176 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Karri Pavan, S/o K Surya Narayana, Aged 46 years, Occ- Business , R/o Flat No.302, Archana Gardens, Kommadi, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi Andhra Pradesh.

¶10

The Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority Represented by its Metropolitan Commissioner, Visakhapatnam District’ Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to may be issue an appropriate writ petition or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the issuing notice, i.e. Rc.No. 17024(32)72/2017/1-3 dated vacate the premises of the Writ Petitioner shop located AnHK Visakhapatnam District, considering the petitioners explanation/reply dt.29.1.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and it IS consequentially prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned notice dated 23.01.2024 and further consequentially prayed, to direct pending disposal of the writ petition, not to interfere with the shop located in 80 Sft located at parking space of Termed Park, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶14

in tho Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased

¶15

to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No 2 in issuing notice, i.e RC.No.17024(32)75/2021 dated 23.01.2024, directing to vacate the premises of the Writ Petitioner shop located in 80 Sft located at parking space of Tenneti Park, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, without considering the petitioner's explanation/reply dt.29.1.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice it is consequentially prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the notice dated 23.01.2024 and further consequentially prayed to direct the respondent no.2 not to interfere with ^e said Writ Petitioner shop and pass such other order^{orordersasthisHon'ble} Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case instead of prayer sought m the writ petition and substituting with the 7f is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing notice, i.e. Rc.No.17024(32)72/2017/1-3 dated 04.04.2017, directing to vacate the premises of the Writ Petitioner shop ^cated in 80 Sft located at parking space of Tenneti Park, Visakhapatnam Pradesh, without considering the petitioner's explanation/reply dt.29.1.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural Justice it is consequentially prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the notice dated 23.01.2024 and further consequentially prayed to direct the respondent no.2 not to interfere with the said Writ Petitioner shop and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ^ lA NO: 1 OF 2024 +h Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^stated ^h®^^['davit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased may be direct the Respondent No.2, to suspend the Notice of the Respondent No.2 m Rc No.l7024(32)/2/2017/l-3 dated 04.04.2017 and duly directing the espondent No.2 not to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner shop Pr'in ® Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh and not to evict him. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. GULIPALI SURAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI. M. MADHAVA REDDY, SC FOR VMRDA The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.4176 of 2024

¶19

Karri Pavan, S/o K Surya Narayana, Aged 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No.302, Archana Gardens, Kommadi, Visakhapatnam.

¶20

...Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh and another. ...Respondents

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Suraj Counsel for respondent No.l : GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action^of respondent No.2 in issuing notice i.e.. Rc.No. 17024(32)72/2017/1-3 dated 23.01.2024, directing^to vacate the premises of the petitioner’s shop located^in80sq.ft at parking space of Tenneti Park, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, without considering the petitioner’s explanation/reply dated 29.01.2024 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

SRS, J W.P.No.4176 of 2024

¶28

Heard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for Sri G. Suraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

¶29

Notice vide Rc.No.l7024(32)/5/2011 dated 23.01.2024 was issued on behalf of the Metropolitan Commissioner, VMRDA, cancelling the license in favour of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within one month. The petitioner submitted explanation on 29.01.2021. Since the respondents are taking steps to evict the petitioner, the above writ petition is filed.

¶30

Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted license vide Rc.No. 17024(32)72/2017/1-3 dated 04.04.2017, for a period of three years. He would also submit that the petitioner has been paying license amount regularly^without any default. He would further submit that without issuing any notice, the license was cancelled.

¶31

Learned standing counsel, per contra, would submit that license granted in favour of the petitioner is for a period

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

SRS, J W.I’.No.4 170 of 2024

¶34

of three years and the same was expired on 03.04.2020. Thereafter, license period was not extended, and the petitioner has been continuing in the premises as encroacher. He would also submit that as per clause No.7 of license conditions, one-month prior notice is required and accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner. He would further submit that the place earmarked for the petitioner^is required for development of parking area.

¶35

Thus, as seen from the pleadings and the submissions of learned standing counsel, there is no dispute that license was granted in favour of the petitioner on 04.04.2017 for a period of three years to conduct business in an extent^of80 sq.ft. The petitioner has been running cafeteria and^infact, has been paying the license amount regularly. The license IS^i: for a period of three years and the same was expired on 03.04.2020 and thereafter, license is not renewed.

¶36

Condition No.7 in the license allotment letter reads^as follows:

¶37

“7. The VUDA has the right to cancel at any time by cancelling the license for any other VUDA purpose and no compensation shall be paid to the licensee. The Licensee has to vacate the premises with one month’s notice on either side.”

¶38

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

SKS. J W.P,No.4176 or 2024

¶41

The proceedings, impugned in the writ petition would manifest that the authority cancelled the license without issuing any show-cause notice by giving 30 days’ time. In fact, the petitioner submitted explanation on 29.01.2024. Though 30 days is stipulated as per condition No.7, the language employed in the notice issued would reflect^that the license is cancelled. No prior notice was issued. Even an encroacher is entitled to notice. Hence, the notice impugned should be treated as show cause notice.

¶42

Since the petitioner submitted explanation on 29.01.2024, the 2nd respondent shall consider the explanation objectively and pass appropriate orders^within a period of three (03) weeks from today and communicate same to the petitioner. Till such time, the respondents shall not take any coercive action.

¶43

With the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed

¶44

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

¶46

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any. SD/- K. KASI RAQ ACHARI stand dismissed. ASSISTANT TRAR

¶47

shall stand dismissed.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO^i OFFICER

To,

of Municipal Administration, State of Andhra

¶52

o Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Andhra Pradesh. noLi Con^n^'ssioner, Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Reaion

¶53

3 OnrccTo® Pradesh. 3. One CC to SRI. GULIPALI SURAJ Advocate [OPUCl DEVELOPMFi?t MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN

¶54

c; High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] I ?hrL ao. lopias Acivocate SC FOR VMRDA [OPUCJ Nm MB.T

yt P

HIGH COURT

DATED: 20/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.4176 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Karri Pavan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karri Pavan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.J.Thukaram Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V J Thukaram Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Ananda Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Marlapudi Satish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Ameerbee, W/o.D.Fakruddin, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

East Coast Foundations Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Vs District Collector, Visakhapatnam.