Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/25530/2020 of Mota Venkatrao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2020
SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.25530 of 2020 ORDER: The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the confirmation order vide no.001/WPRS70/2020 dated 22.12.2020 without considering the reply of the petitioner dated 18.12.2020 as
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.25530 of 2020
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the confirmation order vide no.001/WPRS70/2020 dated 22.12.2020 without considering the reply of the petitioner dated 18.12.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Narapa Reddy Yannam, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration representing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel representing on behalf of respondent No.2 and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that as against the provisional order vide no.001/WPRS70/2020, dated 15.12.2020 issued by respondent No.2, under Section 452(1) and 461(1) R/W 428, 429 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, he submitted a reply through his lawyer on 18.12.2020 and the same was received by the municipal authorities on 19.12.2020 vide track sheet. However, without considering the contends in the reply submitted by the petitioner, the confirmation order was passed on 22.12.2020 as if the petitioner has not submitted his reply to the show cause notice, which is incorrect. He therefore assails the confirmation order.
4. Though the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has not submitted his reply within the time prescribed in the show cause notice, however, the copy of the track consignment sheet issued by the postal department shows that the consignment was delivered on 19.12.2020 itself. The said fact could not be disputed by the respondent No.2, therefore, I find some force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he submitted his reply and the same was received by the respondent No.2 by 19.12.2020. Since there is no reference about receiving of the reply in the confirmation order, the aforesaid order should be taken as if passed without considering the reply of the petitioner. Therefore the confirmation order needs to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the confirmation order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the reply dated 18.12.2020 submitted by the petitioner and after affording a personal hearing to him and pass an appropriate order in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously, but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till such exercise is completed, the petitioner shall not proceed with the further constructions in the subject property and the respondents also shall not take any coercive steps for demolition of the subject property.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J