JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Y.Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for the respondent No.1, Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Provisional Order purported to be under section 452(1) and 461(1) of MC Act, 1955 and as per Section 115(1) and (2) and 116(1) of APCRDA Act, 2014 vide notice No: 1174/1073/VMC/UC/2022, dated 24.09.2022 received by me on 10.10.2022 followed by a Confirmation Order purported to be under section 452(2) and 461(2) of MC Act, 1955 and under section 115(3) of APCRDA Act, 2014 vide Notice No.1174/1073/VMC/UC/2022, dated 08.10.2022 received by me on 10.10.2022 as illegal and arbitrary, to set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere or demolish the structures approved by the 2nd respondent vide B.A.No.1073/1569/B/VMC/J/2022, dated 18.08.2022 situated at Door No: 74-8/1-4, JD Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of petitioner’s explanation dated 14.10.2022 and to pass such other order or orders may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner as also the ground of challenge is that the show cause notice/the provisional order dated 24.09.2022 was never served and without affording any opportunity of hearing the impugned order of confirmation was passed. 4. On 04.11.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation emphasized that the notice dated 24.09.202 was sent to the petitioner through registered post and on 08.11.2022, it was submitted that as per the track consignment report, the item delivery was confirmed. Consequently, it was tried to be submitted that the order of confirmation was passed, after affording opportunity of hearing. He had also placed copy of the track consignment report which was taken on record. 5. Consequently, it was tried to be submitted that the order of confirmation was passed, after affording opportunity of hearing. He had also placed copy of the track consignment report which was taken on record. 5. In view of the contrary submissions as regards service of notice dated 24.09.2022, this Court, on 08.11.2022 passed the following order:- “Provisional order/notice is dated 24-09-2022 and the confirmation order is dated 08-10-2022 but the submission of the petitioners counsel was that the provisional order/notice dated 24-09-2022 was not served. On 02-11-2022, Sri G.Naresh Kumar, Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent was granted time to obtain instructions on the point of service of notice of the provisional order on the petitioner or on some other person on behalf of the petitioner, giving the particulars. Sri G.Naresh based on instructions submits that the provisional order/notice dt.24-09-2022 was sent through Registered post addressed to the petitioner on 26-09-2022 and as per the Track consignment the item delivery was confirmed on 28-09-2022 at 16.46.42. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said notice through registered post was not delivered to the petitioner. He has also placed before the court copy of the Track consignment relating to the same Consignment number and submits that in the copy placed before the Court by the Respondent No.2, one entry dt.28-09-2022 at 12.36.05 mentioning the event “item delivered (To BABA TP SECTION VMC (Article Receipt Room)]” is not reflected which finds mention in the copy placed by him, though in both the Track consignment reports there is entry dated 28-09-2022, at 16.46.42 of the event ‘item delivery confirmed’. The copies of the Track consignment placed before this court are taken on record. In view of the aforesaid, Sri G.Naresh Kumar, prays to post the matter on 15-11-2022 to enable him to seek further instructions and in the mean time to also get the manual report from the concerned Post office, with respect to the service of Registered notice on the petitioner. The concerned authority at Venkateswarapuram Sub Post office, from where the item was booked on the 2nd respondent approaching for the report regarding service of the notice shall furnish the manual report, to be placed before this court on the date fixed. Post on 15-11-2022 in the motion list. The interim order is extended till the next date of listing.” 6. Post on 15-11-2022 in the motion list. The interim order is extended till the next date of listing.” 6. On 15.11.2022, Sri G.Naresh Kumar, based on further instructions submitted that the registered letter containing the notice was returned to the Corporation with the endorsement dated 27.09.2022 “No such person in this address, return to the sender”. 7. Consequently on 15.11.2022 this Court passed the following order:- “Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing respondent No.2 based on written instructions submitted that on 08.11.2022 as per the track consignment report provided to him and placed before the Court on that date on behalf of the Corporation, as per the entry dated 28.09.2022 at 16.46.42, the item delivery was confirmed. 2. Today, Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing respondent No.2, submits based on further instructions that the registered letter containing the notice was returned to the Corporation with the endorsement dated 27.09.2022 “no such person in this address, returned to the sender”. 3. The petitioner’s case throughout is that the notice was not served to the petitioner and any registered letter was not served. 4. Thus, contradictory instructions were provided by the Corporation to its standing counsel and placed before the Court. 5. Taking a serious view of the matter, the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent shall file his personal affidavit, explaining the above, by the next date. 6. Further, in view of the inconsistency between the two track consignment records of the same consignment, one produced by the petitioner’s counsel and the other by Sri G. Naresh Kumar with respect to one entry dated 28.09.2022 at 12:36:05, and showing of ‘item delivery confirmed’ in both the track consignment reports, where the registered post was returned unserved, to the sender, the Post Master, Head Post Office, Vijayawada shall also submit a report on the above points by the next date of listing, positively. 7. Let a copy of this order along with copy of the order dated 08.11.2022 be served to the Post Master, Head Post Office, Vijayawada, by 16.11.2022. 8. Post on 23.11.2022. 9. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of listing.” 8. The 2nd respondent, the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit dated 13.12.2022 annexing therewith the letter of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada, dated 23.11.2022 sent to the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the 2nd respondents’ letter dated 18.11.2022. Post on 23.11.2022. 9. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of listing.” 8. The 2nd respondent, the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit dated 13.12.2022 annexing therewith the letter of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada, dated 23.11.2022 sent to the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the 2nd respondents’ letter dated 18.11.2022. 9. By letter dated 23.11.2022, it has been informed to the 2nd respondent that the show cause notice/the provisional order dated 24.09.2022, sent to the petitioner was finally returned to the sender with the remark “No such person in this address”. The Article was delivered back to the sender i.e., Town Planning Section, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation on 28.09.2022 at Vijayawada HO. 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 15.11.2022, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada has also submitted a report through the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, received on 21.12.2022. The report is to the effect that the article was entrusted for delivery to Postman on 27.09.2022 who attempted to deliver the article to the ‘addressee’ but the ‘addressee’ was not residing at the address given on the article. Hence, the article was returned to the sender with the remarks “No such person in this address return to sender”. The Article was returned to the sender i.e. Town Planning Section, VMC, Vijayawada and it was delivered to the sender on 28.09.2022. 11. The track consignment report annexed with the report of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, is the same as was placed before the Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. 12. The track consignment report is as under:- 28/09/2022 16:46:42 Vijayawada H.O Item Delivery Confirmed 28/09/2022 08:53:56 Vijayawada H.O Out for Delivery 28/09/2022 07:24:05 Vijayawada H.O Item Received 28/09/2022 05:16:26 Vijayawada RS TMO Item Dispatched 28/09/2022 04:27:32 Vijayawada RS TMO Item Received 28/09/2022 04:07:54 Vijayawada NSH Item Dispatched 28/09/2022 01:19:47 Vijayawada NSH Item Bagged 27/09/2022 22:50:05 Vijayawada NSH Item Received 27/09/2022 17:58:11 Venkateswarapuram S.O Item Bagged 27/09/2022 17:19:28 Venkateswarapuram S.O Item Returned No such person in the address 27/09/2022 09:47:30 Venkateswarapuram S.O Out for Delivery 27/09/2022 08:19:40 Venkateswarapuram S.O Item Received 26/09/2022 16:19:52 Venkateswarapuram S.O Item Bagged 26/09/2022 11:45:39 Venkateswarapuram S.O Item Booked 13. The track consignment report submitted by the petitioner is as under:- 28/09/2022 16:46:42 Vijayawada H.O Item Delivery Confirmed 28/09/2022 12:36:05 Vijayawada H.O (Beat Number:16) Item Delivered [To: BABA TP SECTION VMC (Article Receipt Room)] 28/09/2022 08:53:56 Vijayawada H.O Out for Delivery 28/09/2022 07:24:05 Vijayawada H.O Item Received 28/09/2022 05:16:26 Vijayawada RS TMO Item Dispatched 28/09/2022 04:27:32 Vijayawada RS TMO Item Received 28/09/2022 04:07:54 Vijayawada NSH Item Dispatched 28/09/2022 01:19:47 Vijayawada NSH Item Bagged 27/09/2022 22:50:05 Vijayawada NSH Item Received 27/09/2022 17:58:11 Venkateswarapuram S.O Item Bagged 27/09/2022 17:19:28 Venkateswarapuram S.O Item Returned No such person in the address 27/09/2022 09:47:30 Venkateswarapuram S.O Out for Delivery 27/09/2022 08:19:40 Venkateswarapuram S.O Item Received 26/09/2022 16:19:52 Venkateswarapuram S.O Item Bagged 26/09/2022 11:45:39 Venkateswarapuram S.O Item Booked 14. With respect to the entry No.2, dated 28.09.2022 in track consignment report of the petitioner, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices mentions that the said track consignment report, is not appearing in the system software. 15. However, from perusal of all the three track consignment reports, one thing is clear that, on 28.09.2022 at 16:46:42 item was delivered. The two track consignment reports submitted by the parties counsels mentions “Item Delivery Confirmed” and the third report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices mentions “item delivered”. There is difference in the phraseology whereas it should have been same in all the copies of the track consignment report of the same item. 16. Further, though it is mentioned that item was delivered but from none of the track consignment reports, it is clear as to whom the item was delivered; to the addressee or to the sender. 17. The remarks, prima facie, suggest that it is delivered to the addressee, which was also the case of the Corporation, but, in the present case, what has been discovered is that the item was delivered back to the ‘sender’ after the addressee was not found at the address. Item was not delivered to the addressee. 18. These circumstances raise doubt about the veracity on the track consignment reports and as such in the absence of specific remarks as to upon whom the consignment is delivered, it may not be safe to rely upon such track consignment reports. 19. Item was not delivered to the addressee. 18. These circumstances raise doubt about the veracity on the track consignment reports and as such in the absence of specific remarks as to upon whom the consignment is delivered, it may not be safe to rely upon such track consignment reports. 19. Now it is undisputed that the show cause notice/provisional order was not served through registered post to the petitioner and the order of confirmation was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as also the statutory provisions of Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 which cannot be sustained. 20. The petitioner after receipt of the confirmation order has filed his response/explanation dated 14.10.2022. 21. In the result, the impugned order of confirmation dated 08.10.2022 is quashed with the following further directions:- i) The petitioner’s explanation dated 14.10.2022 against the confirmation order shall be considered as explanation against the provisional order dated 24.09.2022. ii) The petitioner may file additional reply, if any, against the provisional order, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the 2nd respondent. iii) The 2nd respondent shall consider the petitioner’s reply dated 14.10.2022 as also the additional reply, if filed and pass final order in accordance with law within a further period of three (03) weeks. iv) The 3rd respondent shall also be afforded opportunity of hearing by the 2nd respondent with due information. v) Till the final decision is taken as aforesaid the petitioner shall not raise any further construction and shall maintain status quo. 22. In view of the circumstances as noticed in this case regarding track consignment report as also the manual report referred to above, this Court considers it appropriate to issue the following directions as well 23. The Chief Post Master General, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Vijayawada is directed to ensure that the track consignment report shall specifically mention about the “Item Delivery Confirmed” or “Item Delivered” upon the ‘sender’ or the ‘addressee’. 24. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada – 521 001 shall take necessary steps to ensure the compliance of the above directions by addressing to the concerned/competent officer of the post offices to do the needful. 25. 24. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada – 521 001 shall take necessary steps to ensure the compliance of the above directions by addressing to the concerned/competent officer of the post offices to do the needful. 25. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Assistant Solicitor General of India as also to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada – 521 001. 26. Writ petition is allowed in part with the observations and directions as made herein above. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.