Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chitneedi Veerabhadra Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 May, 2021
(SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION) , A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATL Se THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTE S ce ot :PRESENT: - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 10233 OF 2021 Between: 1. Chitneedi Veerabhadra Kumar, S/o Rama Rao, aged about 43 years, Oce: Business, R/o D.No. 15-9-1, Satyaprasanna Nagar, Behind Kalpana Theatre, Kakinada Urban Mandal, East Godavati District. 2. Smt. Chitneedi Suryakanthamani, W/o Veerbhadra Kumar, aged about 42 years, Occ: Housewife r/o D.No. 15-9-1, Satyaprasanna Nagar Behind Kalpana Theatre, Kakinada Urban Mandal, East Godavari District. _ Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Land Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Kakinada Municipal Corporation,, rep. by its Commissioner, Kakinada, East Godavari istrict Respondents
WHEREAS _ the Petitioners above named _ through _ their Advocate SYED GHOUSE BASHA presented this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2" respondent in issuing the impugned order bearing Procs. Roc.No. 8737/2019/G1 dt. 16-05-2021 threatening to remove the'structures in 'premises bearing D.No. 2-6-12/6 in T.S.No. 2365 of Sth Ward, Madhav Nagar, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada .City, E.G. District, within 7 days without properly appreciating the explanation dt. 26- 4-2021 submitted to the speaking orders passed by the 2nd respondent dt. 7-4-2021 and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same.
AND WHEREAS the High Court upon perusing the petition and affidavit filed herein and upon hearing: the arguments' of Sri: SYED GHOUSE BASHA Advocate for the Petitioner, directed issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause as to why this WRIT PETITION should not be admitted.
You viz:
- 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Land Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Presently The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Land Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. ~
2. Kakinada Municipal Corporation,, rep. by its Commissioner, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
are directed to show cause as to why in the circumstances set out in the petition and the affidavit filed therewith (copy enclosed) this WRIT PETITION should not be admitted.
TA NO: 1 OF 2021 il Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings . pursuant to the impugned order di. 16-5-2021 bearing Procs.Roc.No. 8737/2019/G1 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition No. 10233 of 2021, on the file of the High Court.
The Court made the following: ORDER "Notice before admission.
Heard Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, learned counsel for petitioners.
Sri M. Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Kakinada Municipal Corporation, takes notice on behalf of the Qn respondent, while learned. Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development takes notice on behalf of the 1 respondent and seeks time to file counter.
The main dispute is as to whether the notice under Section 405 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 issued by the respondents is maintainable.
Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, learned counsel for petitioners, submits that this is a private land in which the petitioners have constructed tin sheds and that sufficient road margin is left while raising constructions. He further submits that the order impugned in the present writ petition came to be passed without considering the documents filed by the writ petitioners. | | On the other hand, Sri M. Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Kakinada Municipal Corporation, submits that the documents filed by the petitioners were considered by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and in fact the order itself
- Indicate that the petitioners were given opportunity of personal hearing before passing the said order.
Having regard to the above circumstances, post after six weeks. Status quo shall be maintained till then. It is made clear that the petitioners herein shall not alienate or lease the subject property to third parties or start business activity on their own in the said shops."
SD/- V.SAVITRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
HTRUE COPY// a For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Land Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad, presently The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Land Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur, (by RPAD- along with a copy of petition and memorandum of ~ grounds)
2. The Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, Kakinada, East Godavari District. (by RPAD- along with a copy of petition and memorandum of grounds) One CC to SRI. SYED GHOUSE BASHA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV »High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
5. Copy to Sri M.Manohar Reddy, SC for Kakinada Municipal Corporation Kakinada, E.G.District [OPUC]
6. One spare copy MSR BY es weeks HIGH COURT
-CPKI DATED:20/05/2021 NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION WP.NO.10233 OF 2021 DIRECTION "?
~