JUDGMENT SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. - Challenging the order dtd. 13/12/2023 directing the petitioner to remove the building compound wall within 24 hours from the date of receipt the order without considering the representation/explanation dtd. 4/11/2023 of the petitioner the writ petition is filed. 2. (a) Notice vide RDP No.9/2022/ACP-III&IV/G1, dtd. 7/8/2023 was issued by the 3rd respondent to the Branch Manager of the petitioner to produce relevant documents for issuance of compensation and TDR as per Rules since the property of the petitioner admeasuring 983 Sq.yds is affecting in MP road widening. Explanation was submitted on 22/8/2023 to the Zonal Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakahapatnam (for short GVMC"). The Zonal Commissioner again issued notice vide RDP No.9/2022/ACP-III & IV/G1, dtd. 29/8/2023 to handover the affected portion to GVMC by way of consent and relevant documents i.e., notarized affidavit, legal heirs etc. Notice under Sec. 635 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short GHMC Act") was issued by the Assistant City Planner, Zone-III, GVMC. Zonal Commissioner issued notice vide Notice No.01/2023/ACPIII/TPS/Ward-21, dtd. 7/10/2023 directing the petitioner to submit explanation within three (3) days as to why the building is not removed, altered or pull down the unauthorized construction under HMC Act. (b) It was averred in the affidavit that W.P.No.26668 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner and the same was disposed of on 11/10/2023. While disposing of the writ petition, the petitioner is directed to submit explanation within two (2) weeks. The authorities are directed to enquire by giving opportunity of hearing and to pass orders within eight (8) weeks. The petitioner submitted representation/explanation on 4/11/2023. Thereafter, the order dtd. 13/12/2023, impugned in the writ petition, was issued by the 3rd respondent and the same was received by the authorised representative of the petitioner on the same day. Hence, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri Ghanta Ramarao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. As seen from the material available on record, in the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it was pointed out that the building was constructed about 70 years back. 3. Heard Sri Ghanta Ramarao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. As seen from the material available on record, in the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it was pointed out that the building was constructed about 70 years back. It was also pointed out about the Andhra Pradesh Regulation and Penalization of Unauthorisedly Constructed Building and Buildings constructed in Deviation of the Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2007 (2007 Rules) and the Andhra Pradesh Regulation and Penalization of Buildings Constructed unauthorizedly and in Deviation of the Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2015 (2015 Rules). It was specifically contended in the explanation that the building was constructed about 70 years much prior to the HMC Act came into existence. 5. As can be seen from the order impugned, it neither indicates affording of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner nor consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 6. The words consider" was analyzed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors v. A Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 . and held thus: "19. The word "consider" is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order." 7. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. G.Sreenivas Reddy & Ors., 2006 (3) SCC 674 . Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows. We may, in this context, examine the significance and meaning of a direction given by the court to "consider" a case. When a court directs an authority to 'consider', it requires the authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then take a decision thereon in accordance with law. We may, in this context, examine the significance and meaning of a direction given by the court to "consider" a case. When a court directs an authority to 'consider', it requires the authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then take a decision thereon in accordance with law. There is a reason for a large number of writ petitions filed in High Courts being disposed of with a direction to "consider" the claim/case/representation of the petitioner/s in the writ petitions. 1) Where an order or action of the State or an authority is found to be illegal, or in contravention of prescribed procedure, or in breach of the rules of natural justice, or arbitrary/unreasonable/irrational, or prompted by mala fides or extraneous consideration, or the result of abuse of power, such action is open to judicial review. When the High Court finds that the order or action requires interference and exercises the power of judicial review, thereby resulting in the action/order of the State or authority being quashed, the High Court will not proceed to substitute its own decision in the matter, as that will amount to exercising appellate power, but require the authority to 'consider' and decide the matter again. The power of judicial review under Article 226 concentrates and lays emphasis on the decision-making process, rather than the decision itself. 2) The High Courts also direct authorities to 'consider', in a different category of cases. Where an authority vested with the power to decide a matter, fails to do so in spite of a request, the person aggrieved approaches the High Court, which in exercise of power of judicial review, directs the authority to 'consider' and decide the matter. In such cases, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court directs 'consideration' without examining the facts or the legal question(s) involved and without recording any findings on the issues. The High Court may also direct the authority to 'consider' afresh, where the authority had decided a matter without considering the relevant facts and circumstances, or by taking extraneous or irrelevant matters into consideration. In such cases also, High Court may not examine the validity or tenability of the claim on merits, but require the authority to do so. The High Court may also direct the authority to 'consider' afresh, where the authority had decided a matter without considering the relevant facts and circumstances, or by taking extraneous or irrelevant matters into consideration. In such cases also, High Court may not examine the validity or tenability of the claim on merits, but require the authority to do so. 3) Where the High Court finds the decision-making process erroneous and records its findings as to the manner in which the decision should be made, and then directs the authority to 'consider' the matter, the authority will have to consider and decide the matter in the light of its findings or observations of the court. But where the High Court without recording any findings, or without expressing any view, merely directs the authority to 'consider' the matter, the authority will have to consider the matter in accordance with law, with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, its power not being circumscribed by any observations or findings of the court. 4) We may also note that sometimes the High Courts dispose of matter merely with a direction to the authority to 'consider' the matter without examining the issue raised even though the facts necessary to decide the correctness of the order are available. Neither pressure of work nor the complexity of the issue can be a reason for the court, to avoid deciding the issue which requires to be decided, and disposing of the matter with a direction to 'consider' the matter afresh. Be that as it may. 5) There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of 'pliable' authorities have misused the direction 'to consider' issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, timebarred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to 'consider' and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to 'consider', the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to 'consider' the grant of relief. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to 'consider', the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to 'consider' the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order 'to consider' as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to 'consider', may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of court's direction to 'consider' the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily wagers seeking regularization/ absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a largescale misuse of the orders 'to consider'. 8. In Bhikhubhaivithalabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 (4) SCC 144 . the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "... The term consider means to think over; it connotes that there should be active application of the mind. In other words, the term consider" postulates consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter. ..." 9. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs.Sunder Lal Jain, 2008 (2) SCC 280 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "... Consider means to look at closely and carefully; to think or deliberate on; to take into account. ..." 10. In Ram Chander Vs. Union of India, 1986 (3) SCC 103 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "consider" means an objective consideration by the Railway Board after due application of mind which implies the giving of reasons for its decisions. 11. In Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Vs. T.R. Chellappan, 1976 (3) SCC 190 , 201. the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the term "consider" postulates consideration of all the aspects, the pros and cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved person. 12. In Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. A.J. Rana, 1972 (1) SCC 240 . 11. In Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Vs. T.R. Chellappan, 1976 (3) SCC 190 , 201. the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the term "consider" postulates consideration of all the aspects, the pros and cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved person. 12. In Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. A.J. Rana, 1972 (1) SCC 240 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the dictionary meaning of the word consider" is to review attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch.), to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, mediate on, give heed to, take note, to think deliberately, bethink oneself to reflect". The words to consider" means to think with care. It is also mentioned that to consider" is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination, etc. 13. Thus, a conspectus of the above decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, the word consider" means there should be intense application of mind to the facts of the case basing on the averments. Apart from that whenever explanation is submitted to the show cause notice, the authority shall consider the explanation by applying its mind. Non-consideration of explanation, in the considered opinion of this court suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. In fact, in cases where property rights are involved, any adverse order by the authority, results in infringement of right to property guaranteed under Art 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, an opportunity of personal hearing must be provided, though the Act doesn"t stipulate. Right to property though ceased to be a fundamental right, it is a Constitutional right as also human right as held in decisions reported in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Deepak Aggarwal, 2022 Supreme (SC) 640. and Hamid Ali Khan (D) through Lrs., Vs State of U.P., 2021 Supreme (SC) 846. 14. Case at hand, since the order does not indicate consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner apart from affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the order dtd. 13/12/2023 impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside. 15. The Zonal Commissioner, GVMC shall consider the explanation dtd. 4/11/2023 submitted by the petitioner and afford opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law. 13/12/2023 impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside. 15. The Zonal Commissioner, GVMC shall consider the explanation dtd. 4/11/2023 submitted by the petitioner and afford opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps in respect of the property i.e. ITC building bearing D.No.10/1/45 and 10/1/46 of Waltair Village, Ward No.21, Visakhapatnam District. 16. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.