IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28004 of 2008 Between: B.Poornima, W/o. B.K.Guruprasad, R/o. D.No.6/5-502, Maruthi Nagar, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or Order or direction declaring the Order passed by the second respondent in UCD.No. 2/2008/II dated 12-12-2008 which was signed on 17-12-2008 as arbitrary, illegal and against principles of Natural justice and furthe direct the resopndents to regularize the construction made by the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SURESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.28004 of 2008 ORDER: 1 This Court by order dated 20.11.2008 disposed of the Writ Petition No.25423 of 2008 with a direction to the respondents to consider the application given by the petitioner on 30.04.2008 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant thereto the respondent authority passed the impugned order on 12.12.2008 stating as follows: “In pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad it is informed that 5th floor construction was taken place after 15.12.2007. Hence it is unauthorized construction one. The notices issued to you under 452 and 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 are confirmed and you are directed to remove the 5th floor construction which is unauthorized one or otherwise the unauthorized construction will be removed by the Municipal Corporation and claim the expenses incurred by the department from you.” 2 Questioning the said order, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Ananthapur Municipal Corporation i.e. second respondent herein. 4 When once the Court has specifically directed the authority to pass an order in accordance with law, simply accepting the application and passing an order in a mechanical way is unexpected. The very purpose of directing the authority to pass the order in accordance with law means the authority is supposed to pass orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned etc., But from a reading of the order impugned in this Writ Petition, it is clear that the second respondent has not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance. Hence the impugned order dated 12.12.2008 is liable to be and is hereby set aside and the respondent authority is hereby directed to consider the representation dated 30.04.2008 said to have been given by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is needless to direct the second respondent to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing any orders. Till such time no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent authorities against the petitioner in respect of the property in question. ------------------------ SRI T.G.K, J. 23.12.2008 Kvsn