ORDER : As the issues raised in these three writ petitions are common and the facts relating to these writ petitions are similar, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The petitioners, who are owners of buildings, in Shroff Bazar, in Kurnool Municipal Corporation, have approached this Court being aggrieved by the 2nd respondent- Corporation seeking to seal and demolish their buildings. 3. In W.P. No. 13815 of 2021, the petitioner, in October 2020, received notices from the 2nd respondent- Corporation, under Section 429 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “The Act”), requiring the Petitioner to submit a copy of a sanctioned building plan/BRS/BPS. The writ petitioner submitted a copy of the sanctioned plan, relating to his building, situated in D.No.18/100 A3, Sharoof Bazar, Kurnool. The 2nd respondent had thereupon issued a notice bearing U.C.No.13/2020/WRPS-100 dated 23.11.2020, under Section 452 and 461(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized and illegal constructions made in deviation to the approved plan. The respondent-corporation issued subsequent proceedings bearing Roc.No.371262/JA(G2)TP-KMC dated 02.07.2021 under Section 636 and Section 461-A of the Act, 1955 to remove unauthorized construction of 9 commercial shops within 24 hours on receipt of notice, failing which, the respondent-corporation would remove/seize the said constructions at the expense of the petitioner. Subsequently, 4 of these commercial shops were also sealed under Section 461-A of the Act, 1955 on 05.07.2021. Aggrieved by the said actions of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition. W.P.No.13141 of 2021 4. In W.P. No. 13141 of 2021, the petitioner, who is the owner of the building, situated in D.No.18/100-A7 was issued a notice by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to produce his copy of the sanctioned building plan. In reply, the petitioner submitted the said sanctioned plan, approved in the building permission granted in BA.No.06/2005/G-3 dated 09.05.2005. Thereafter, the respondent-corporation issued notice bearing UC.No.13/2020/WPRS-100 dated 23.11.2020, under Section 452 and 461(1) of the Act, 1955 to the petitioner, for removal of the unauthorized and illegal constructions. In reply, the petitioner submitted the said sanctioned plan, approved in the building permission granted in BA.No.06/2005/G-3 dated 09.05.2005. Thereafter, the respondent-corporation issued notice bearing UC.No.13/2020/WPRS-100 dated 23.11.2020, under Section 452 and 461(1) of the Act, 1955 to the petitioner, for removal of the unauthorized and illegal constructions. Subsequently, the respondent-corporation again issued proceedings in Roc.No.371262/2020/JA(G2) TP-KMC dated 02.07.2021 under Section 436 and 461(A) of the Act, 1955 to remove unauthorized construction of 12 shops made on the ground floor and subsequently seized and sealed these 12 shops on 06.07.2021. W.P.No.13136 of 2021 5. In W.P. No. 13136 of 2021 a notice dated 07.10.2020 was issued to the petitioner in relation to his building, situated in D.No.18/100-A8, Kurnool for production of the sanctioned plan. As the petitioner did not produce the approved plan, the 2nd respondent issued a notice bearing UC.13/2020/WPRS-100 dated 23.11.2020 under Section 452 and 461(1) of the Act, 1955 for removal of unauthorized and illegal constructions. Thereafter, a further notice bearing proceedings in Roc.No.371262/2020/JA(G2)TP-KMC, dated 02.07.2021 under Section 636 and 461-A of the Act, 1955 was issued to the petitioner, to remove 6 shops on the ground floor and 5 shops on the first floor which had been constructed without authorization and these shops were subsequently sealed on 06.07.2021. 6. The petitioners have approached this Court with the complaint that the said seizure and sealing of the shops is not in accordance with law and it is arbitrary and highhanded. Another complaint made by all the petitioners is that such action has been taken selectively and against only a few persons while all the other owners of buildings in the said area are not being disturbed in any manner by the 2nd respondent-corporation. The respondents were called upon to produce the file relating to the notices issued by the respondents, in this regard. The file relating to the issue of notices, were produced before this Court. The notices contained in the file show that notices have been issued across the board and this contention of the petitioners has to be rejected. 7. Sri P.Veera Reddy learned Senior Counsel, appearing in W.P.No.13136 of 2021 had contended that the petitioners had only made certain changes in the buildings and the said alterations would not attract any of the penal provisions those are now sought to be invoked by the 2nd respondent-corporation. 8. 7. Sri P.Veera Reddy learned Senior Counsel, appearing in W.P.No.13136 of 2021 had contended that the petitioners had only made certain changes in the buildings and the said alterations would not attract any of the penal provisions those are now sought to be invoked by the 2nd respondent-corporation. 8. Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents in this case, would submit that a building permission was given, in 1952, for the entire area called Shroff bazar, for construction of 36 residential houses with two shops in front of each house to enable the residents of that area to carry on their traditional business. He submits that over time, all the houses have now been converted into shops, without obtaining any permission or approval from the Municipal Corporation. He would submit that, as in the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.13141 and 13815 of 2021, the original structures were demolished and new structures had been built, after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation. However, these subsequent permissions were for construction of residential houses while the constructions actually made by the petitioners were commercial buildings and shops. He would contend that at present, there are 252 shops against the 72 shops which were permitted under the approval granted in 1952. He submits that on account of this rampant violation of the building rules, and the permissions given by the 2nd respondent-corporation, the entire area has become crowded and unsanitary. He submits that the traffic in the area has become uncontrollable and there was a recent instance of a person passing away due to the inability of the ambulance to reach in time. He submits that these buildings need to be regulated and the action taken by the respondents has been strictly in accordance with law and adequate opportunity has been given to all these petitioners to set out their defenses. He would further submit that the complaint of the petitioners that selective action is being taken is incorrect as notices have been issued to other owners of buildings also. However, the tenants in these buildings had approached this Court, by way of writ petitions and had obtained interim orders, which are still in force. He submits that on account of the pendency of these writ petitions, the 2nd respondent-corporation is not able to take any action against these persons. 9. However, the tenants in these buildings had approached this Court, by way of writ petitions and had obtained interim orders, which are still in force. He submits that on account of the pendency of these writ petitions, the 2nd respondent-corporation is not able to take any action against these persons. 9. Any person proposing to erect or re-erect a building is required, under Section 428 of the Act, to give notice of his intention to construct such a building, stating the purpose for which it is being constructed, and erect or re erect such a building only after obtaining a building permission, for such construction, from the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. Section 428 of the Act also stipulates that conversion of a place originally intended for human habitation into a stall, shop, warehouse or godown or vice-versa would come within the definition of “to erect or re-erect the building”. Once such a building is constructed, the use of the said building cannot be changed without the permission of the Commissioner. Section 441 of Act mandates that a building constructed for any other purpose cannot be used for human habitation unless written permission is obtained from the Commissioner. For the converse, Section 442 of the Act mandates that a building constructed for human habitation cannot be converted into a godown, warehouse, work place, factory, stable or a motor garage, without the written permission of the Commissioner. 10. In the event of a person, carrying out erection or re-erection of any building or work described in Section 423 of the Act, unlawfully, the Commissioner, under section 461, may direct such a person to stop the same forthwith and also remove the said person from the said premises. Apart from this, the Commissioner would have power to seal any premises where orders to stop such unlawful construction, under Section 461 of the Act, had been passed. 11. In the present case, the contention of the Municipal Corporation is that the petitioners who had obtained permissions, for construction of a building for human habitation had converted the said building into a commercial space consisting of shops. The municipal corporation also took the stand that the constructions in question are unauthorized constructions, attracting the provisions of Section 452 of the Act. 12. The notices issued by the Municipal Corporation, under section 452 of the Act, state that the constructions are unauthorized. The municipal corporation also took the stand that the constructions in question are unauthorized constructions, attracting the provisions of Section 452 of the Act. 12. The notices issued by the Municipal Corporation, under section 452 of the Act, state that the constructions are unauthorized. However, the nature of the violation is not set out therein. That is, the notices are silent on the question whether the construction of the entire building is unauthorized or whether the building has become unauthorized because the building is being used for purposes other than the purpose for which building permission had been granted. 13. In the absence of these details, and keeping in mind the fact that it is the admitted case on all sides, that the buildings of the Petitioners were constructed under the original permission of 1952 or permissions obtained subsequently for re constructing the buildings, it would have to be held that the notices are essentially issued for violation of Section 443 of the Act. The penalty or action that can be taken by a Municipal Corporation for violation of this provision is provided under Section 596 of the Act. 14. There is no provision for sealing a building which has been converted in violation of Section 442 and 443 of the Act. In fact, the only provision granting the power of sealing a house or a building, by the Commissioner is Section 461-A of the Act. This provision grants power to the Commissioner to seal the premises after making an order for the removal or discontinuance of any unauthorized development or construction under Section 461 of the Act. Section 461 of the Act authorizes the Commissioner to direct stoppage of work which is in progress. The language of Section 461 of the Act applies only at the stage when the building is being constructed. The provisions of Section 461 of the Act do not lend themselves to any completed building which is in occupation. In the circumstances, the sealing of the premises of the Petitioners has to be set aside on two grounds, Firstly, the Commissioner has no power to seal a building, in the event of violation of Section 442 or 443 of the Act. Secondly, the Commissioner can seal a building only after passing an order under Section 461 of the Act, requiring any person to stop unauthorized construction, which is in progress. Secondly, the Commissioner can seal a building only after passing an order under Section 461 of the Act, requiring any person to stop unauthorized construction, which is in progress. No such orders have preceded the sealing of the premises of the petitioners. 15. In the said circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed directing the respondents to unseal the buildings of the petitioners. However, this would not preclude the authorities from taking further steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.