IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1520 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/09/2008 in WP NO : 10041 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: T.Mallanna S/o Late Siddappa,Hindu 4-5-63/2 Ramamandir Street Sadhasivapet,Medak District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Municipal Commissioner Sadhasivapeta Municipality Sadhasivapeta Medak Dist 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Sadhashivapeta(M) Medak District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.A.PADMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Writ Appeal No.1520 of 2008 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Smt. A.Padma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant; Sri Polisetti Radhakrishna, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1; and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 22-9-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in disposing of W.P.No.10041 of 2007 with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Municipal Council of the 1st respondent Municipality within four weeks from the date of the order or to approach the competent civil Court for establishing his right over the site admeasuring 201.23 square metres. It was further directed that there should be status quo existing as on the date of the order for a period of six weeks to enable the petitioner to avail the remedies as indicated above. 3. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent No.1 is the Municipality and respondent No.2 is the Mandal Revenue Officer in the writ petition. 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for appellant that the appellant made an application for sanction of building permission. Though, initially the Municipality kept the application pending, the same was not considered. Therefore, W.P.No.25830 of 2006 came to be filed. While disposing of the said writ petition, at the stage of admission, by order dated 22-12-2006, this Court directed the Municipality to consider the application of the petitioner for building permission, dated 12-7-2005, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 5. Now, the averment is that despite which, no orders have been passed by the Municipality and on the contrary, a notice of demolition, dated 23-3-2007, was issued to the appellant on the ground that there was some encroachment. 6. Challenging that notice, W.P.No.6365 of 2007 has been filed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 30-3-2007, with a direction to the petitioner to offer an explanation. It appears, an explanation has been offered by the petitioner on 02-4-2007. By virtue of the orders passed by respondent No.1, the explanation of the petitioner was rejected on 05-4-2007. 7. Now, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for appellant that it is the Commissioner, representing the Municipal Council, passed the final orders and that therefore, the present direction of the learned single Judge to file an appeal under Section 345 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (‘the Act’, for brevity) is not correct. 8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality contends that the Commissioner only, in ordinary course of proceedings and in the capacity of the Executive Officer, passes orders. But, the impugned order cannot be understood as an order passed by the Council, which would be represented by the Chairperson, since the said application had not been considered by the Municipal Council, which is the supreme body and the orders since have not emanated through the Chairperson, this order cannot be treated as the one passed, as contemplated by this Court in Writ Petition No.6365 of 2007. 9. We agree with the said submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Municipality. 10. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant is at liberty to file an appeal under Section 345 of the Act before the Municipal Council of respondent No.1-Munitipality and the same shall be considered by the Municipal Council within a period of six weeks from today. Till such time, there shall be status quo as on today shall be maintained. 11. With the above modification, the writ appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in all other respects. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 26th November, 2008. Ak ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {BMR}