HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22272 of 2007 Date : 10.11.2011 Between : B. Venkata Satyanarayana. …..Petitioner And The Municipality, Jagtial, rep. by its Commissioner & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22272 of 2007 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order issued by the Commissioner, Jagtial Municipality, in exercise of powers under Section 228(3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). By the aforesaid order, dated 10.10.2007, issued in UCR.No.133/ 2007-08, petitioner was directed to remove the constructions made by him in the house premises bearing No.1-1-208, 209 and 210. It is also stated in the aforesaid order that failing to remove the structures as indicated, the Municipality will demolish the same and recover the costs from the petitioner. Alleging that the constructions made by the petitioner were unauthorised, an order under Section 228(1) of the Act was passed and the same was served on the petitioner along with notice as contemplated under Section 228(3) of the Act. In the provisional order under Section 228(1) of the Act, it is alleged that the petitioner has constructed the building bearing house No. 1-1-208, 209 and 210 on Yawar road, Jagtial, without permission and he was asked to remove the said constructions. When the same is served alongwith notice as provided under Section 228(3) of the Act, the petitioner has filed a detailed explanation, dated 11.09.2007. In the explanation filed by the petitioner, it is stated that earlier also, he submitted documents relating to permission, dated 15.06.2007, and inspite of the same, the impugned notice was issued. Along with the explanation dated 11.09.2007, the petitioner has also filed a copy of the permission proceedings and other documents for construction, denying the allegation of unauthorized constructions. Inspite of the same, the impugned order is passed in UCR No.133/2007-08, dated 10.10.2007, in exercise of powers under Section 228(3) of the Act, confirming the earlier orders under Sections 228(1) and 228(2) of the Act, merely stating that no proper reasons are stated by the petitioner in his explanation in response to the notice issued under Section 228(3) of the Act. When it is the contention of the petitioner that he has not made any unauthorized constructions and in response to the notice issued under Section 228(3) of the Act, when a detailed explanation is filed, supported by documents, the respondent-Commissioner is required to examine such explanation and documents filed along with the explanation, before passing the order of demolition under Section 228(3) of the Act. Merely stating that no proper reasons are stated in the explanation, it is not open for the Commissioner to confirm the orders issued under Section 228(1) of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of demolition issued under Section 228(3) of the Act, dated 10.10.2007, issued in UCR.No.133/2007-08, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 10.10.2007, issued in UCR No.133/2007-08, is quashed, with a direction to the Commissioner, Jagtial Municipality, to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner in response to the notice issued under Section 228(3) of the Act, and pass appropriate orders, giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th November 2011 ajr