THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30639 of 2010 Date:09.02.2011 Between: P. Bhaskar ..... Petitioner AND Peerzadiguda Gram Panchayat and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Chandraiah Sunkara Counsel for Respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the notice dated 06.10.2010, whereby respondent No.1 called upon the petitioner to remove alleged illegal construction within fifteen days, failing which action as per Section 121 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 will be taken against him. The only ground on which the impugned notice is questioned in this writ petition is that the same was not preceded by a show-cause notice to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that on the direction issued by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned notice. Under Rule 33(2) of the Lay-out and Building Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002, in case of unauthorized construction, the District Panchayat Officer or his officers may take any of the actions envisaged in Rule (1) thereof and issue suitable instructions to the Executive Authority to take necessary action against the unauthorized construction. In his affidavit, the petitioner has averred that he has obtained permission for ground plus two floors and in addition to the same, he has constructed a water tank and a big room for storage of waste building material. The petitioner failed to deny the specific allegation made in the impugned notice that he has constructed third floor unauthorizedly by way of a pent house. Though ordinarily before directing removal of the alleged unauthorized structure, the authority concerned shall issue a notice, on the facts of the present case the doctrine of useless formality theory squarely applies. In the absence of any specific denial of construction of a pent house contrary to the sanctioned plan, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned notice. The respondents shall be free to take action against the petitioner, if he has raised construction contrary to and in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order dated 07.12.2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.39006 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th February, 2011 GHN