JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ. The present Writ Appeals arise out of a common judgment and order, dated 18.07.2025, whereby Writ Petitions bearing Nos.15425 of 2023, 17367 of 2024 and 515 of 2025, have been decided. 2. The genesis of the controversy lies in the construction which is raised by the petitioners in W.P.No.515 of 2025, i.e. Smt. T.S.V.S.N.R. Mani Manjari and Sri T.C.H.V. Narasimha Rao. 3. It appears from the record that permission was granted by the Bhimavaram Municipality in favour of the private respondents herein to raise construction for a residential building falling in Survey Nos.99/5 and 99/6, within the limits of Bhimavaram Municipality. Permission was granted vide order dated 01.02.2022, for raising Ground + One Upper Floor building comprising three Bedrooms, a Kitchen and a Hall. 4. The allegation of the appellant was that after having obtained the building permission for a residential building, the private respondents in the instant Writ Appeals started building a shopping mall. Inaction on the part of the municipal authorities to take action forced the appellant to prefer W.P.No.9875 of 2023, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 20.04.2023, whereby the municipal authorities were directed to consider the representation of the appellant and pass appropriate orders thereupon. Pursuant to the consideration of the representation, the Commissioner of Bhimavaram Municipality passed an order, dated Nil.05.2023, wherein it was held by the said Commissioner that the construction raised by the private respondents was being raised in accordance with the approved plan and that there were no deviations or unauthorized constructions as on that date. This order came to be challenged by the appellant herein in W.P.No.15425 of 2023. By virtue of an interim order, dated 28.06.2023, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the municipal authorities to not permit any construction activity on the spot, in case the same was in deviation of the sanctioned plans. 5. It also appears that the learned Single Judge called for a report from the Commissioner of Bhimavaram Municipality, in which report it was stated by the Commissioner, upon ground verification, that the building owners had constructed the building in Ground Floor RCC slab roof laid over the iron gudders from the ground level instead of cement pillars. 5. It also appears that the learned Single Judge called for a report from the Commissioner of Bhimavaram Municipality, in which report it was stated by the Commissioner, upon ground verification, that the building owners had constructed the building in Ground Floor RCC slab roof laid over the iron gudders from the ground level instead of cement pillars. It was also stated that there were brick walls on three sides and the front side had been covered with Kerbey Sheet Wall Cladding, leaving setbacks all around the building. The Commissioner also stated in the report that the owners of the building were constructing rooms and hall with wooden MDF board cladding instead of brick walls and were also to provide the provision for a lift. 6. In other words, the Commissioner tried to justify the construction of the building as a construction which was residential in character. 7. Photographs placed on record along with the report of the Commissioner, however, suggested another story, far from justifying the construction to be in the nature of a residential building. 8. On the face of it, even to us, the construction clearly is one which shows it to be more in the nature of a warehouse/large go-down instead of a residential building with rooms, toilets, and a kitchen, as was otherwise reflected in the sanctioned plan. 9. A similar opinion was expressed even by the learned Single Judge in its order, dated 27.12.2023, where it recorded thus: “Pursuant to the order dated 01.11.2023 of this Court, the Commissioner, Bhimavaram Municipality filed a status report. As seen from the status report, the unofficial respondents are making commercial construction instead of residential building. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to get instructions. List the matter on 03.01.2024.” 10. In the additional affidavit which was filed before the learned Single Judge, the private respondents, who had obtained the permission, took a stand that the building under construction was always meant to be used for residential purpose and that the size and shape of the building could not decide its usage. It also took a stand that it was premature to assume that the building would be used for commercial purpose at that stage. The stand taken also was that while raising construction, the requisite setbacks on all sides had been kept and there was no violation of the permissions so granted. It also took a stand that it was premature to assume that the building would be used for commercial purpose at that stage. The stand taken also was that while raising construction, the requisite setbacks on all sides had been kept and there was no violation of the permissions so granted. In paragraph 3 of the said additional affidavit, the private respondents further placed reliance upon notification, dated 17.01.2024, to highlight the point that the said notification had been issued, whereby the usage of the area had been changed from residential to commercial, and that while the private respondents would use the building for residential purposes only, they reserved their right to get a new plan approved for commercial use, in future, in accordance with law. 11. Subsequently, it appears that the private respondents filed an additional affidavit, dated 19.07.2024, whereby they informed the Court that they had since obtained from the Eluru Urban Development Authority, permission to use the premises in question for commercial purpose and that the construction would be completed as per the plans approved. The permission granted by the Eluru Urban Development Authority was vide permit, dated 28.06.2024. This permission, subsequently, came to be challenged by the appellant, by way of W.P.No.17367 of 2024. The challenge to the said permission is primarily on the ground that no such permission could have been granted by the Eluru Urban Development Authority in terms of Sections 209, 210, and 227 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, inasmuch as the building permission having initially been granted for a different purpose i.e. residential in character, could not have subsequently been changed to a building permission for commercial purpose. 12. In other words, what is being suggested by learned counsel for the appellant is that the building in question ought to be first demolished and only then, would fresh permission be applied for and granted, keeping in view the changed circumstances, and in particular the circumstances where the Government changed the zone in question from Residential to Commercial. 13. The learned Single Judge having considered the entire matter, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned held that the photographs filed along with Writ Petition and the status report dated 22.11.2023, undoubtedly disclosed that it was in fact a commercial building that was being constructed right from the beginning. 13. The learned Single Judge having considered the entire matter, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned held that the photographs filed along with Writ Petition and the status report dated 22.11.2023, undoubtedly disclosed that it was in fact a commercial building that was being constructed right from the beginning. The material used in the construction as per the status report, it was held was asbestos sheet, boards, etc., which would disclose that the structure was more in the nature of a warehouse. It further observed that the action of the Eluru Urban Development Authority (EUDA) in sanctioning the building plan for a commercial purpose, the construction of the building being completed in a record time of three months from the sanction of the plan and being handed over to tenants, the learned Single Judge indicated that the building was always meant to be commercial in character. Moreover, the building in question was also on a road which was popularly known as Komarada Road, on which thousands of vehicles are stated to be plied round the clock. The area, according to the learned Single Judge, was more commercial in nature. It held that the private respondents in W.P.No.15423 of 2023 did not reflect the true picture and therefore, costs were required to be imposed. The only mitigating factor that the learned Single Judge found in the entire case was the fact that building had now been brought in consonance with the A.P. Building Rules of 2017. It is in the backdrop of the aforementioned facts that the learned Single Judge taking a lenient view imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on private respondent Nos.3 and 4. 14. Learned counsel for the private respondents tried to justify and reiterate the stand which was otherwise taken before the learned Single Judge to bring home the point that the construction in question which was being raised was strictly in accordance with the building plans, which had been approved by the municipal authorities/Eluru Urban Development Authority and the building would be used only for residential purposes, and further that the entire basis for proceeding against the private respondents was non-existent and more with a view to take vengeance on the answering respondents, who are otherwise neighbours. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 16. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 16. Insofar as the argument that the Eluru Urban Development Authority (EUDA) could not have granted permission to the private respondents to raise a structure for commercial purposes, as the permission earlier granted was for residential purposes only, is concerned, we are of the opinion that there is no bar in the scheme of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, which would prohibit an applicant from applying to the concerned authority, yet again, for changing the purpose for which the construction is to be raised from Residential to Commercial, in view of the changed circumstances, whereby the Government by virtue of notification, dated 17.01.2024, had changed the concerned zone from Residential to Commercial. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has not brought to our notice any fact which would persuade us to hold that the process for granting permission by the Eluru Urban Development Authority was not followed by the said authority. 18. In the absence of any prohibition to grant permission for raising construction for commercial purposes, we hold that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in upholding the said permission granted vide permit, dated 28.06.2024, cannot be found fault with. 19. We, however, are of the opinion that all along the private respondents, as also the then Commissioner, Bhimavaram Municipality, had tried to cover up the whole issue by trying to justify the construction being raised by the private respondents, which was on the face of it, commercial in nature, as one being residential in character. Even a layperson who is not connected with the construction industry, but possesses ordinary prudence, would have, on a mere perusal of the photographs, which formed a part of the report submitted by the Commissioner, come to a conclusion that the construction being raised was commercial in character. The construction, on the face of it, can be seen to be in the shape of a big go-down and could perhaps even be used for an aircraft hangar, if it was otherwise close to the aerodrome. By no stretch of imagination could the said construction be said to be residential in character. There was thus a clear attempt on the part of an officer of the rank of Commissioner of a municipality to mislead and misrepresent to the Court the true facts on spot. By no stretch of imagination could the said construction be said to be residential in character. There was thus a clear attempt on the part of an officer of the rank of Commissioner of a municipality to mislead and misrepresent to the Court the true facts on spot. While justice may be blind, judges are not and therefore, what is apparent to us from the photographs is the fact that the Commissioner was not truthful enough to admit that the construction was commercial in character. 20. The fact that immediately after the conversion of the zone from residential to commercial, the private respondents had sought for formal permission for raising a structure for commercial purposes, and further that they immediately thereafter let out the premises to tenants, is clearly suggestive of their intent right from the beginning. 21. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has been very lenient in imposing costs of only Rs.50,000/- and that too on the private respondents alone. We feel that the costs need to be imposed at least to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- to be borne equally, i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- each, by the private respondents, as also the then Commissioner of the Bhimavaram Municipality, which shall be paid by her person. The costs shall be deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who shall transfer the same into the account of the State Legal Services Authority, to be used for the benefit of the visually and the hearing impaired. The costs shall be deposited within two weeks from today. Any costs, already deposited by the private respondents, shall be adjusted against Rs.2,50,000/- which we have now ordered. 22. List this matter on 29.12.2025, only for purposes of ensuring the payment of the costs. 23. The judgment and order impugned shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent only. Accordingly, these writ appeals are disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.