THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.20785 of 2005 BETWEEN: E. Annapoornama PETITIONER And 1. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri, Urban Development Authority, rep. by Vice-Chairman, Governorpet, Vijayawada, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri Counsel for the respondent No.1: Smt. K. Aruna Counsel for the respondent No.2: Sri G. Elisha The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K. Aruna, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri G. Elisha, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has challenged the show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent in R.C.No.C5/35/05, dated 1.07.2005 and R.C.No.C8/35/05, dated 1.07.2005, as illegal. The notice in R.C.No.C5/35/05, dated 1.07.2005 was issued under Section 42(1) of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act 1975 (for short ‘the Act’) and the notice in R.C.No.C8/35/05, dated 1.07.2005 was issued under Section 43(1) of the said Act. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 1000 sq. yds of land situated in R.S.No.244/2 of Kanuru Village of Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. He obtained permission from the 1st respondent vide T.P.N.40 of 2005, dated 8.04.2005 for construction of apartments. During the process of construction after noticing deviations, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice dated 1.07.2005 indicating the deviations resorted to by the petitioner. It was mentioned therein that contrary to the zoning regulations set backs were not properly maintained, exceeded the coverage area and FAR ratio. By means of the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation as required under Section 42(1) of the Act within five days. On the same day, i.e., on 1.07.2005 orders were passed in R.C.No.C8/35/05 under Section 43(1) of the Act directing the petitioner to stop further construction. This writ petition has been filed on the premise that although by means of show cause notice in R.C.No.C5/35/05, dated 1.07.2005, the petitioner was permitted five days time to submit his explanation, without waiting for the reply, the 1st respondent passed orders on the same day in R.C.No.C8/35/05. Basing on the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that such a course of action in passing the order without receiving reply and considering the same, is improper. However, on a perusal of both the aforesaid proceedings it may be noticed that the first one is a show cause notice for removal of unauthorized constructions and in the later proceedings the petitioner was asked to stop further construction. The said notice and the order although were passed on the same day, operate in different fields, one for removal of constructions already made and the other to prevent further constructions. In view of this discernible distinction, it cannot be said that the impugned proceedings are illegal. However, in response to the show cause notice the petitioner has submitted explanation on 5.07.2005 denying that he has made unauthorized constructions. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the 1st respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. However, the 1st respondent in his counter affidavit denies that the petitioner has filed any explanation and states that final orders were passed on 11.07.2005. The copy of explanation filed by the petitioner as a material document in the writ petition shows that he in fact filed the explanation and the same was received by the office of the 1st respondent on 5.07.2005. In view of the same, the contention of the respondent that the petitioner did not file any reply cannot be accepted. In any event, demolition being serious in nature, in all fairness the 1st respondent ought to have verified whether in fact the alleged deviations have been committed by the petitioner in the construction of building. A perusal of the counter affidavit does not show that any such exercise has been made. For the aforesaid reasons I am of the view that in the interest of justice the 1st respondent shall reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner shall file a copy of the explanation, said to have been filed by him on 5.07.2005, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After receiving such explanation the 1st respondent shall consider the same and after due inspection of the premises, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 8th March, 2011 Js.