HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19785 of 2011 Date: July 15, 2011 Between: Smt. N. Lalitha … Petitioner And 1. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, Divisional Office, Mangalagiri, rep. by its Vice- Chairman & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19785 of 2011 O R D E R: The grievance of the petitioner is that her application seeking penalization and regularization of her unauthorized construction in the premises bearing Door No.10-333/1, Srinagar Colony, Yerrabalem village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, was rejected under proceedings dated 31.12.2010 by the Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, on the ground that she had not paid the full amount and had not submitted full information. The petitioner complains that she was not put on notice with regard to any shortfall in the amount paid by her and as to the requirement of submitting further information. 2. Smt. K. Aruna, learned standing counsel representing the first respondent authority, states that a public announcement was made in the locality calling upon the applicants to furnish full information and despite the same, the petitioner failed to do so. 3. The impugned proceedings dated 31.12.2010 indicate that the petitioner’s application was rejected for the reasons mentioned in the prescribed format by ticking the appropriate items. The appropriate items ticked are: xiv. Full information not submitted; and xv. Full amount not paid. It is therefore clear that even under this communication, the petitioner was not put on notice as to what was the information which was yet to be submitted by her and what was the amount still due from her. This approach on the part of the first respondent authority while dealing with an application submitted under the penalization scheme cannot be countenanced. The first respondent authority ought to have individually communicated to the petitioner as to what was the shortfall in the amount paid by her and what further information was required from her. The failure on the part of the first respondent authority in this regard therefore vitiates the rejection of the petitioner’s application, which is accordingly set aside. 4. The respondent authority shall communicate to the petitioner the amount still due from her and the information that is to be submitted by her within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall do the needful in response thereto within four weeks thereafter. The first respondent authority shall thereupon consider the petitioner’s application on merits in accordance with law and dispose of the same within two months thereafter. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: July 15, 2011. BSB