Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 452 in Yuvajana Shramika Rythu Congress Party ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 July, 2024Matching Fragments
While so, suddenly after the defeat of the petitioner's political party in the General Elections, 2024, and upon the change of circumstances, to the utter surprise and shock of the petitioners the respondent No.4 of the respondent No.3-Corporation issued provisional order under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of APMC Act, 1955 and under Sections 89(1 & 2) r/w Sections 82 and 90 (1) of APMRUDA Act, 2016 in Notice No.01/1001/ATP/UC/TP/2024 dated 22.06.2024 calling upon the petitioners to show sufficient cause as to why the unauthorised construction should not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Similarly, the respondent No.6 representing the office of the respondent No.5 also issued similar provisional order notice under Sections 84(5), 88, 89(1), (2), 90 and 91 of APMRUDA Act, 2016 in U.C.Notice No.02/2024/AHUDA dated 22.06.2024 calling upon the petitioners to show sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation of the construction should not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Immediately, the petitioners submitted the explanation to the respondent authorities vide letters dated 25.06.2024 in pursuance of the above said impugned provisional orders dated 22.06.2024. Consequently, the petitioners also stopped the further construction of the building in the said land with effect from the date of receipt of the said impugned notice and even till date they have not commenced the work. But the respondent authorities in similar circumstances have high handedly and in an arbitrary manner demolished a similar building in Tadepalli in the early hours on 22.06.2024 and the opposite party cadre is threatening that all the party offices will be demolished in a similar fashion. While so, few people claiming to be acting under the instructions of the respondent authorities had entered into the said lands in the early hours of 22.06.2024 and threatened that they would be demolishing the building and also warned not to interfere with the demolition activity as it may cause a threat to the life. In view of the said reasonable apprehension of threat of demolition, this writ petition is filed assailing the above said impugned provisional orders dated 22.06.2024.
6. He further refers to the observation made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25816 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 at paragraph 15, which reads as follows:
"15.Whether the deviation in the present case, as per the provisional order are minor, minimal or trivial, or affect public at large or in public interest or not, or cause public nuisance or hazardous or dangerous to public safety including of the residents therein require consideration by the competent authority of the Corporation before resorting to the demolition. In the Full Bench judgment Section 452 of the A.P.Municipal Corporation Act itself was for consideration."
7. He also refers to the Full Bench decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P.No.10019 of 1993 dated 02.09.1994 in the matter of 3 ACES HYDERABAD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD1, wherein it was held as under:
"27. Point No. 4: This point relates to the power to demolition under S. 452 of "The Act". The contention of the petitioner is that the demolition contemplated under Sec. 452 of "The Act" is not a mandatory one. The power of demolition should not be resorted to unless overwhelming public interest is involved. We have already referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Prathiba
28. ...
29. Now, the other point which remains to be dealt with is whether the case of Shamsuddin Hasan Khudankmen (1978 (2) Andh WR 91) (supra) which construed the word "may" occurring in Section 452 of "The Act" is rightly decided or not. The learned Judges in the said Judgment held that the word "may" occurring in Section 452 of "The Act" is not mandatory, in the sense that the Commissioner is not bound to direct demolition of the building under the said section in every case of violation. In coming to the said conclusion, the learned Judges relied upon and followed the two-Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Calcutta Corporation v. Mulchand, AIR 1956 SC 110.