THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.15310 of 2011 Dated 08th September, 2011 Between: Thoutireddy Lakshmi …Petitioner And The Kakathiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal at Hanamkonda, rep.by its Vice-Chairman and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri G.Vishweshvar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy 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 respondent No.1 in seeking to demolish the petitioner’s house, bearing H.Nos.6-103/1 and 6-103/2, in Survey No.173/A/7 admeasuring 137 sq.yards at Enumamula Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, without following due process of law and without passing any orders on the explanation, dated 28.05.2011, to the show-cause notice, dated 26.05.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has constructed the houses as referred to above. By the show-cause notice, dated 26.05.2011, issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner was called upon to show-cause why the structures raised by him shall not be removed as he has failed to obtain permission from respondent No.1 under Section 13 of the A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has issued a legal notice, dated 28.05.2011, wherein he has denied allegation that the constructions made by him are illegal or unauthorised. Before any order has been passed by respondent No.1 on the show-cause notice, the present writ petition is filed on the apprehension that it is likely to demolish the structures illegally. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, there is no reference to the show-cause notice or to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The counter affidavit is devoted mainly to the proposed 200’ master plan road and the alleged illegal construction made by the petitioner. On behalf of respondent No.2, the Panchayat Secretary filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that on the petitioner’s application for grant of building permission, the Gram Panchayat has passed resolution, dated 07.06.2005, recommending to respondent No.1 for granting permission, but no orders were received by respondent No.2. In my opinion, having issued show-cause notice, respondent No.1 shall conclude the proceedings after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. If after considering such explanation, respondent No.1 feels that the structures are raised illegally, an appropriate order shall be passed before taking any action. Without following this procedure, respondent No.1 shall not take any coercive steps for removal of the structures raised by the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.18369 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.3368 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th September, 2011 VGB