IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18916 of 2008 Between: P.V.S. Madhusudhana Rao S/o. Babu Rao R/o. D.No.13-9-76/8, C.B. Road, Near Z.P. Office, Srikakulam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Srikakulam Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned provisional order of the respondent in U.C.No.25 of 2008 dated 16-8-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently by setting aside the impugned provisional order by directing the respondent not to interfere with the construction of schedule property in T.S.No.190/1 part D.No.13-9-76/8 situated at near APHB Colony, Srikakulam in 2nd Floor without giving any opportunity before passing orders under BRS Scheme in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18916 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by P.V. S. Madhusudhana Rao assailing the provisional order passed by the respondent-Municipality under Section 228 (1) of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. 2. The petitioner claims that he completed the construction and thereafter submitted application for regularization of the construction under ‘Building Regularization Scheme’ and therefore the issuance of provisional order under Section 228 (1) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 is not warranted. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri S. Nageswar Reddy, leaned standing counsel received notice on behalf of the respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issuance of provisional order is not warranted in view of the application ﬁled by the petitioner seeking regularization of the construction under ‘Building Regularization Scheme’. 6. I have gone through the provisional order, dated 16-8- 2008, it is stated in the provisional order that the petitioner is proceeding with the construction of second ﬂoor, without their being any permission. If it is the case of the petitioner that he has already completed the construction and submitted the application for regularization under ‘Building Regularization Scheme’, he is at liberty to submit explanation to the provisional order. 7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit explanation to the provisional order within a week and thereupon the respondent shall consider the explanation before conforming the provisional order as provided under Section 228(3) of the Municipalities Act. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 2nd September, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18916 OF 2008 2nd September, 2008.