THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17425 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any action against respondents 3 to 6 in pursuance of the proceedings issued under Section 228(3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 04.02.2011, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and the Rules made thereunder, and consequently direct the respondents to remove the unauthorised construction of respondents 3 to 6. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is a resident of Priyadarshini Nagar, Nirmal, which is totally residential locality. As respondents 3 to 6 are constructing a commercial complex at Door No. 5-11-51/30(Old), New No.5-3-391, Nirmal, he made a complaint to respondents 1 and 2 stating that respondents 3 to 6 are constructing the building digging up to 15 feet below the land, due to which his house, which is behind the said site, may collapse at any time. On receiving the said complaint, the second respondent issued notice dated 25.01.2011 under Section 228(1) of the Act to respondents 3 to 6 to stop construction and submit explanation. Since respondents 3 to 6 have not submitted any explanation, the second respondent issued a final order dated 04.02.2011 under Section 228(3) of the Act asking them to remove the constructions. But respondents 1 and 2 colluded with respondents 3 to 6 and even though final order was passed in the month of February, 2011, respondents 3 to 6 are carrying out illegal construction day and night with the help of respondents 1 and 2. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the petition averments and stating that Priyadarshini Nagar locality is under residential zone as per the master plan of Nirmal town; that respondent 3 to 6 applied for building permissions and gave applications individually along with proposed plan to construct a building by paying required fee; that as respondents 3 to 6 commenced the construction work even prior to the approval of the plan submitted by them, notices were issued under Sections 228(1) and 228(2) of the Act to remove the structures; that thereafter, permission for construction was rejected on 23.03.2011 and the same was served on them; that in the meanwhile the matter has become sub judice and they are awaiting the orders of this Court to proceed with the matter and that consequent to the issuance of provisional orders and confirmation orders, further construction of the building was stopped by the Municipality. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without there being any sanction for construction of cellar, the unofficial respondents made construction and the official respondents have not taken any action for removal of the same. Hence, he prays to give directions to the official respondents to act in accordance with law. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that without there being any sanction, respondents 3 to 6 made construction in the cellar and it is a clear violation as per the provisions of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6 contended that though the sanction plan for cellar was rejected, the respondent officials collected amount towards betterment and development charges and therefore, respondents 1 and 2 cannot take any action for removal of the cellar. 7. It is not in dispute before this Court that respondents 3 to 6 made construction without any prior sanction from the Municipality for making construction in the cellar. The counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 would clearly go to show that respondents 3 to 6 made construction in cellar without any prior approval and therefore, they have invoked Sections 228(i) 228 (ii) and 228 (iii) of the Act for removal of the structures which were raised in the cellar portion. It is also not in dispute before this Court that the application of respondent 3 to 6 for permission to construct building was rejected by the Municipality on 23.03.2011. The Municipality initiated action in removing the structure by issuing provisional orders and confirmation orders. But, the Municipality has not proceeded further, since the matter has become sub judice in view of filing of the present writ petition by the petitioner, and they are awaiting the orders of this Court. 8. In view of the fact that respondents 3 to 6 have made construction in the cellar without there being any sanction plan, the same shall have to be removed in accordance with law. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to take further action in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 stated that the copy of the rejection order dated 23.03.2011 has not been served on respondents 3 to 6. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to serve a copy of rejection order dated 23.03.2011 to respondents 3 to 6. 10. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. BHANU, J Date: 02.12.2011 va