THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6937 of 2009 Date:24.08.2011 Between: Challa Satyanarayana ..... Petitioner AND The Municipal Commissioner, Ramachandrapuram Municipality, East Godavari District. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ms. K.Kalpana for Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao Counsel for Respondent : Sri S.Nageswara Reddy Standing Counsel for Municipalities The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of property bearing D.Nos.12-3-1 and 12-3-49 of Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, pending consideration of his explanation, dated 26.03.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of the above-mentioned premises, which were stated to have been constructed in 40 square yards of land, within the municipal limits of the respondent. The petitioner is running a sweet shop in the said premises. He claimed that even though no permission was required for renovation of his shop, he made an application on 16.02.2009 for permission, and on 18.03.2009, the respondent served notices under Sections 228(1) and (2) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’), ante-dating the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the said notices were served along with order, dated 02.03.2009, under Section 217(3) of the Act, whereby the provisional order was confirmed as there was no explanation from the petitioner. He alleged that both the notices and the confirmation order were served on the same day, thereby, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity of submitting his explanation. In the light of this specific allegation made by the petitioner, this Court has called upon the respondent to produce the original record. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent has produced the record, a perusal of which shows that the notice issued under Section 228(1) of the Act and the provisional order issued under Section 228(2) of the Act are dated 17.02.2009 and they were served on the petitioner on 18.02.2009, as could be seen from the purported signature of the petitioner under which the date ‘18.02.2009’ is mentioned. Below the signature, one Anasuri Venkata Rao, Attender, has made an endorsement that he has executed the notice personally on 18.02.2009. The record further reveals that the confirmation order, dated 02.03.2009 issued under Section 217(3) of the Act was served by the same Attender on 18.03.2009 under the signature of the petitioner. From this material, this Court is satisfied that the respondents have followed due procedure in issuing notice, provisional order and the final order. The petitioner has not denied the allegation that he has raised the structure without obtaining permission from the Municipality which has led to passing of the order under Section 217(3) of the Act. In my opinion, the construction made by the petitioner without permission is liable to be removed and I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in seeking to remove the unauthorized construction. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is accordinlgy dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, order, dated 01.04.2009 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.9078 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24t August, 2011 DR