THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23336 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner intended to construct a building upon the premises bearing No.20-3-5B/A1, Tirumala By-pass Road, Tirupati. On an application submitted by him, the Municipal Corporation, the respondent, accorded permission on 07-02-2007 for constriction of ground + two upper floors. The petitioner, however, added three more floors. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31-12-2007, providing for regularization of the unauthorized constructions. The petitioner submitted an application on 30-04-2008. He states that he has not received any orders on the application. The respondent issued notice dated 26-10-2009, requiring the petitioner to explain, as to why the unauthorized portion of the construction be not demolished. It was mentioned that the petitioner did not submit any application for regularization, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31-12-2007. The petitioner challenges the impugned notice. Heard Sri B. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri S.I. Newton, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner made construction of three floors, over and above, what was permitted by the Corporation. The Government framed a scheme for regularization of unauthorized constructions. Even the respondent did not proceed against the unauthorized constructions, wherever applications for regularization were made. The impugned notice was issued on the assumption that the petitioner did not submit any application for regularization. The petitioner has placed before this Court, a copy of the application, that was said to have been received by the respondent, on 30-04-2008. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid through demand draft, dt. 28-04-2008. Obviously, this fact was not noticed by the respondent, before it issued the impugned notice. Even now, the record can be verified, and if the petitioner had submitted any application, the same deserves to be considered in accordance with the G.O. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned notice is set aside. It is directed that the respondent shall consider the application submitted by the petitioner for regularization. In case the record of the respondent does not disclose the filing of application by the petitioner, it shall be open to the latter, to place sufficient proof about it. Till this exercise is undertaken, the respondent shall not demolish the premises in question. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.30-10-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO