THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10318 OF 2003 Dated 29th December, 2009 Between: Sri Ramachandra Ashramam Seva Bharathi ….Petitioner And The Nagar Panchayat, Medak and two others ….Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.Viswanadham Counsel for the respondents : None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 24.05.2003 passed by the Commissioner of respondent No.1 Panchayat. Heard Sri V.Vishwanatham, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property in question under a registered sale deed. On 08.02.2001, the petitioner applied for building permission for construction of certain shops to augment its income. Respondent No.1 is stated to have received the said application and as no communication was received by the petitioner thereafter, it has started construction of shops by invoking the deemed provision contained in Section 214 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short “the Act”). Respondent No.1, however, issued the impugned proceedings under Section 228 (1) and (2) of the Act, wherein the petitioner is called upon to explain within three days as to why the said provisional order should not be confirmed. At this stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the said proceedings. No counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.1. Respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded, by order dated 13.07.2004 passed by this Court. It is their case that they are the owners of the property and that a title suit filed by them against the petitioner is still pending. From the facts noted above, it is evident that while the petitioner sought to proceed with the construction by invoking the deemed provision under the Act, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice by exercising its power under Section 228 (1) and (2) of the Act. It is clearly stated in the impugned proceedings that as no prior permission has been obtained by the petitioner, the construction is liable to be removed. In my opinion, the petitioner approached this Court prematurely because under Section 228 (3) of the Act, it is entitled to submit its explanation to the show cause notice and it is only in the event of the petitioner not being able to explain to the satisfaction of respondent No.1 that it has commenced the construction in accordance with law, that the structure will be removed. Therefore, the statute has provided for an opportunity to the petitioner to first approach respondent No.1 with satisfactory explanation and prevent further action from being taken. It is only if the petitioner fails to succeed in that attempt, then the question of its invoking a remedy would arise. In these circumstances, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and hence, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents with an explanation. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th December, 2009 vrn