WP/26109/2026 of MARAPU REDDY MUNI REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 10 September 2026

1. MARAPU REDDY MUNI REDDY, S/O. M. RANGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC BUSINESS RIO. D.NO.4/42-339-11 PORATA COLONY REVENUE WARD NO.4 TADIPATRI ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. AND

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAUDI AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT 522237.

2. THE TADIPATRI MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER TADIPATRI ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515411.

3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, TADIPATRI MUNICIPALITY TADIPATRI ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515411.

4. THE TOWN SURVEYOR, TADIPATRI MUNICIPALITY TADIPATRI ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515411.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

K Naveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri K.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Gudapati

Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the notice dated 08.09.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent under Sections 217 and 228(1 & 2) of The Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, and Sections 88(1), 89(1 & 2), and 90(1) of The Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the deviation/violations in the construction should not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never issued any show-cause notice and that the respondents have straightaway to arrive at a conclusion that there are deviations in the construction. It is further submitted that there is no such deviation as alleged by the respondents.

4. Sri Gudapati Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that, as it is evident from the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has deviated from the plan by raising three floors and has constructed over and above the building permission granted to the petitioner. Having regard to the same, the respondent authorities were constrained to issue the impugned notice.

5. Considered the submissions.

6. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. This Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file his objections to the impugned notice dated 08.09.2026, treating the same as a show-cause notice, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Upon filing such objections, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8. Till passing of such orders, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed not to take any coercive measures pursuant to the notice dated 08.09.2026.

9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 11.09.2026 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 26109 OF 2026

Dated: 11.09.2026 BSK