HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6140 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in proceeding against the building said to have been constructed by the 6th respondent. 2. The Petitioner submits that the 6th respondent, his neighbour, has constructed a four storied building without permission, taking the advantage of uncertainty as to the functioning of the local authority Bhadrachalam. It is stated that though representations were made to the Bhadrachalam Municipality, the 2nd respondent herein, when it was functioning and thereafter to the Gram Panchayat, the 5th respondent, no steps were taken. 3. The Gram Panchayat filed a counter – affidavit. According to it, no permission was accorded to the 6th respondent and further steps would be take in accordance with law. The 6th respondent filed a counter – affidavit stating that an application was submitted by it on 14-08-2008 to the then Municipality and subsequently, the Gram Panchayt came into existence. According to him, none of the local authorities have passed orders either rejecting or grating permission and accordingly, a deemed permission had accrued to them. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent. 4. It is no doubt true that the 6th respondent constructed a building, without there being a specific permission. The Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act or the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, as the case may be, contain the provisions to the effect that in case, the concerned local authority fails to grant or reject the permission in response to an application, within a specific period, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted. 5. Uncertainty prevailed as to the nature of the local authority that was functioning in Bhadrachalam. Initially, there was Gram Panchayat and that was upgraded to Municipality. The notifications issued for this purpose were challenged and by operation of the interim order passed by this Court, the Gram Panchayat had to be restored. The question as to whether a deemed permission be accrued to the 6th respondent or not, needs to be examined. At present, the Gram Panchayat is functioning. Even now, the Gram Panchayat, 5th respondent, can issue notice requiring the 6th respondent to justify the construction made by him. In case, the 6th respondent is able to satisfy the 5th respondent that a deemed permission had accrued and that the building constructed by him accords with the bye-laws, the matter must end there. On the other hand, if the 5th respondent finds any anomaly or illegality in the construction made by the 6th respondent, notice needs to be issued, citing the relevant provisions of law. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the 5th respondent shall verify from the 6th respondent as to the basis on which the building is constructed. It shall be open to the 6th respondent to take factual legal pleas as are open to it. The 5th respondent shall also ensure that no further construction is made by the 6th respondent except in accordance with law. It shall be open to the petitioner to submit objections or representations at various stages of the proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 23, 2011. KTL