IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22802 of 2011 Between: S. Changalvamma … Petitioner And The Municipal Commissioner, Gudur Municipality, Gudur, S.P.S. Nellore District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar Counsel for the respondent: Sri S. Nageswara Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22802 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 22.06.2011, of the respondent, whereby he has confirmed provisional order, dated 08.03.2011, for removal of the unauthorised structure raised by the petitioner. The petitioner constructed a building comprising stilt, ground, first and second floors in pursuance of building permission No.42/11/G1, dated 08.03.2011 issued by the respondent. The respondent issued a notice and provisional order, dated 13.06.2011, under Sections 228 (1) and (2) and 217 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”) alleging that the petitioner constructed the building contrary to the sanctioned plan without leaving proper set backs on the front and rear sides and thereafter final order, dated 22.06.2011, was passed confirming the provisional order and directing the petitioner to change the constructions or remove the extra constructions within seven days failing which the petitioner will be prosecuted and the unauthorised constructions will be removed. Questioning the said final order, the present Writ Petition is filed. The main plank on which the impugned order is assailed is that the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the provisional order is not considered and that an incorrect finding was given in the final order that no reply was received from the petitioner. In support of her plea that she has given reply to the provisional order and show cause notice, the petitioner has filed a copy of representation, dated 17.06.2011, which contains the seal of the office of the respondent bearing the date as 17.06.2011. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Nageswar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that the seal on the copy of representation, dated 17.06.2011, would give rise to a presumption that the office of the respondent has received the explanation, but the same is not considered before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order passed under Section 228(3) of the Act suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and hence the same is set aside. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with the direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 17.06.2011, pass a fresh order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till this exercise is completed, the respondent shall not interfere with the petitioner’s building. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.27882 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 12.08.2011 ES