HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7848 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is an industry for manufacture of paper established in the year 1942 at Sirpur-Kaghaznagar, Adilabad District. In the recent past, it has taken up the extension of the unit. For that purpose, making of certain civil constructions became necessary. The permissions from the various agencies, such as Factories Department were obtained. An application was made to Kaghaznagar Municipality, the respondent herein, on 26-04-2006 seeking permission to make construction for the installations. Acting on the same, the respondent issued proceedings, dated 09-05-2006, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,18,335/-. That amount was paid on 22-06-2006. A further sum of Rs.55,360/- was demanded through endorsement, dated 03-08-2006. That amount was paid on 09-08-2006. The petitioner commenced the construction. However, on 29-08-2006, the respondent issued a notice under Section 228(2) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, requiring the petitioner to explain within 7 days as to why the unauthorized construction be not demolished. A final notice was issued on 12-04-2007. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. On the one hand, the Government claims that it would take all possible steps to pave the way for industrialization of the State by streamlining the procedures and on the other hand, the local authorities exhibit their typical attitude even when it pertains to the constructions made within the existing factories. It is not as if the petitioner intended to bring about an industry for the first time. It was existing much before the Municipality was formed. With a view to undertake expansion, the petitioner submitted the application to the respondent seeking permission. If the application is defective in any manner, the respondent ought to have rejected or returned the same. Obviously, on finding that the application is in order, the respondent required the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.3,18,335/- through communication, dated 09-05-2006. No defect in the plan was pointed out. The petitioner paid the amount. Few months after deposit of the same, the respondent required the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs.55,360/-. Curiously, a request was made to the petitioner to file the title deeds. The amount was paid and hardly there was any dispute about title, since the construction was to be made in the existing factory itself. The construction of residential houses or other structures may wait till the formalities are completed. However, the constructions in the context of expansion of industrial units stand on a different footing. Specialised agencies are engaged for installation of machinery and civil work is almost subsidiary to the installation. The respondent has not even pointed out any violation of the rules as to set back. On the one hand, it has collected substantial amount from the petitioner and on the other, it is proposing to take penal action. The attitude of the respondent cannot be countenanced in law. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. It is, however, made clear that in case the respondent finds that the construction made by the petitioner is in deviation of any building bye-laws, it shall be open to it to point out the same, so that the petitioner can take corrective measures or explain. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY 24th February, 2011 VJL/KDL