IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3024 of 2009 Between: Smt.T.K.Sharada W/o. M.Praveen Kumar R/o.D.No.7-284, Court Road, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Anantapur Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The City Planner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned notice dt. 11.1.2009 bearing No.3/2009 issued by the respondent directing the petitioner herein to remove the structures in premises bearing D.No.7- 284 situated at Court Road, Anantapur Town, without passing any orders on petitioner explanation and without affording reasonable opportunity as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same, and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 11.1.2009 issued by the 1st respondent – Commissioner, Ananthapur Municipal Corporation directing her to remove the construction made in premises bearing D.No.7-284 situated at Court road, Ananthapur District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent municipality and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The main grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notice dated 23.1.2009 issued by the 1st respondent directing her to appear before him on 30.1.2009, she submitted her explanation on 30.1.2009 stating that she made the construction in her site as per vaastu and that she did not encroach into either the public site or private site and also expressed her willingness to pay the necessary penal charges to regularize the constructions made by her in violation of the sanctioned plan but the authorities without considering the said explanation, issued the impugned notice directing her to remove the constructions within 24 hours. The learned standing counsel for the respondent municipality submitted that since the petitioner has already submitted her explanation to the show cause notice dated 23.1.2009, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders, for which course of action, the petitioner also agreed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 23.1.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and till such time, the respondents shall not demolish the constructions made by the petitioner, which are in violation of the sanctioned plan. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.17.1.2009 NOTE: Furnish CC by tomorrow (B/o) msv