IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20050 of 2008 Between: M. Satya Kumari W/o. Satyanarayana R/o.6-1-190/6, Meher Nivas, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, A.P. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality, Bhongir, Nalgonda Distirct. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 direction or writ more particularly a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Show Cause Notice dated 30.07.2007 and the consequential Final Order through proceedings P.O.No.G/UCR/MCB/7/2008-2009 dated 28.07.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRASAD RAO VEMULAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 20050 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by M. Satya Kumari assailing the show cause notice dated 30-7-2007 as well as conﬁrmation order dated 28-7-2008 issued by the Commissioner Bhongir Municipality-1st respondent. 2. The petitioner is the owner of Ac.4-04 gunts in Survey No. 131/Munju and 132/Munju of Anantharam village of Bhongir having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 30-12-1993. She also obtained pattadar Pass Book bearing No. 465 from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Bhongir in respect of the land purchased by her. She claims to have obtained permission from 2nd respondent for construction of ﬁve shops and paid Rs.26,405/- towards various charges. A show cause notice, under Section 344(6) of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 came to be issued to her. There seems to be no explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the show cause notice issued on 30-7-2007 came to be conﬁrmed under proceedings dated 28-7-2008. The show cause notice and the confirmation order are under challenged in this writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri Polishetti Radha Krishna, learned standing counsel for Bhongir Municipality received notice on behalf of the 2nd Respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not reply to the show cause notice since she was staying in Secunderabad whereas the property situated within the jurisdiction of Bhongir Municipality. A further submission has been made that the petitioner secured necessary permission from the 2nd respondent before proceeding with constructions. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has eﬃcacious remedy of appeal under Section 345 of the A.P. Municipality Act. A further submission has been made that the petitioner having obtained permission for construction of the residential house is proceeding for construction of shopping complex. He would also submit that the constructions are coming within an area of green built as demarcated in the master plan. 7. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the rival contention of the parties. Since petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal to the Municipal Council as provided under Section 345 of A.P. Municipalities Act. 8.. In that view of the matter the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of an appeal as provided under Section 345 of A.P. Municipality Act within a period of three weeks from today. There shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to the structures put up by the petitioner till the date of filing the appeal. I may also make it clear that the petitioner shall not reconstruct any of the structures demolished by the respondents or put up any new constructions till the petitioner ﬁles an appeal and secures interim orders in his appeal. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 15th September, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 20050 OF 2008 15th August, 2008.