THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 33553 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in trying to demolish the purified water plant including building i.e., Pula Aqua Industries of the petitioner situated at WB-5, Darivada Kottapalem, 1st ward, Survey No.315, Bapatla Municipality, without following due process of law, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the water plant including the building of the petitioner, without following due process of law. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, may be stated as follows: The petitioner took the vacant site in an extent of 16½ cents situated at WB-5, Darivada Kottapalem, 1st Ward, Bapatla Municipality, in Survey No.315, from her husband on lease on 03.02.2011 and paid Rs.11,000/- to the second respondent towards approval to establish a purified water plant. She also submitted an application along with the plan to the authority concerned proposing to construct a building (1+1). Since the Municipal authorities neither rejected nor accepted her application and they orally instructed her to proceed with the construction, she started the construction and completed the same by the end of November, 2011. She arranged all equipments and other facilities by investing Rs.30,00,000/- and planned to open the purified water plant in the 1st week of January, 2012. While so, the second respondent and his staff are orally threatening her to demolish the purified water tank on the ground that so far her application for construction has not been approved. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without issuing any notice and without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, the second respondent is trying to demolish the purified water plant including the building and therefore, he prays to issue a direction to the second respondent not to interfere with the purified water plant and the building of the petitioner without following due process of law. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that if the petitioner has constructed the building in question without obtaining permission from the Municipality, the second respondent will take necessary action in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner seems to have constructed a purified water plant in the above said premises. She made an application to the authority concerned on 04.07.2011 for permission to construct a building. Since the Municipal Authorities neither rejected nor accepted her application, she started construction of the building on 10.11.2011 and completed the same. The second respondent and his staff are orally threatening the petitioner to remove the said construction and machinery on the ground that her application for construction has not been approved. 6. If the petitioner has constructed the building without obtaining sanction from the Municipality, the Municipality has to issue a notice to the petitioner calling for explanation and thereafter, appropriate action can be initiated against her, if she had violated the building byelaws in making construction. But, the Municipality cannot forcibly demolish the building, without following due process of law. 7. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take appropriate decision by calling for explanation of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ K.C.BHANU, J. Date: 20.12.2011 va