THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9453 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent in threatening to demolish his building in plot Nos.170 to 173, 176 to 179 comprised in Sy.Nos.8, 10 & 11/2 situated at Mothey Rajkumar Nagar, Eluru-2, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of 1995 sq. yards of land situated in plot Nos.170 to 173, 176 to 179 in Sy.Nos.8, 10 and 11/2 and he applied for construction of building and the same was accorded vide proceedings dated 25.07.2003. The petitioner states that the respondent-Municipality issued a notice dated 16.12.2003 (wrongly mentioned as 16.12.2004), under Section 217(1) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), stating that required space was not left on north, south and west and that constructions were made extending coverage, increasing floor area ratio etc. and that he had submitted his reply on 08.04.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he submitted his reply denying the allegations pursuant to the notice dated 16.12.2003, the respondent-Municipality without passing any order, as contemplated under Section 217(3) of the Act, is taking steps for demolition of the structures. While admitting the writ petition, this Court, by an order dated 01.06.2004, directed the respondent-Municipality not to demolish the building constructed by the petitioner in plot Nos.170 to 173, 176 to 179 comprised in Sy.Nos.8, 10 & 11/2 situated at Mothey Rajkumar Nagar, Eluru-2 and the same is continued during the pendency of the writ petition. Though the writ petition is of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-Municipality. Under Section 217 (1) of the Act, if the Commissioner finds that the constructions are made contrary to the sanction plan, he may, by notice, require the owner of the building to make such alterations, as may be specified in the said notice so as to bring the construction in conformity with the approved plan. Sub-section 3 contemplates that, if the owner shows cause, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 217 of the Act, either he may cancel the notice or confirm the same subject to modifications, as he may think fit. In the instant case, though the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the notice issued under Section 217(1) of the Act, the respondent-Municipality has not passed any final orders till date. Therefore, the question of demolishing the petitioner's building does not arise. Hence, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent-Municipality not to take any steps for demolition of the structures till final orders are passed by the comptent authority. However, the comptent authority while passing final orders shall consider the explanation dated 08.04.2004 submitted by the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date:05.08.2009 usd