'Vindictive': AP High Court Raps State For Withholding Occupancy Certificate Of YSRCP Party Office

Noting that State authorities are duty-bound to issue occupancy certificate for the building once it is fit for occupation, Justice Harinath N observed,

“The duty of the respondents is to process the grant of occupancy certificate for the petitioners building in a routine and standard manner. The inaction on part of the respondents in following the routine and standard approach clearly implies the external pressure and influence on them. There is no justification for the acts of the respondent authorities in denying the occupancy certificate without any justifiable cause.”

The Court was informed that the authorities were preventing petitioners from utilising the building and had demolished a slab constructed over the drain for ingress and egress, which rendered the building completely inaccessible from the main road, and further were sending men to create hindrances whenever the petitioners are trying to lay a slab. In light of this, the Single-Judge observed,

“Insofar as the constant interference of the respondents in demolishing/removing the slabs laid over the drain for ingress and egress into the petitioners' building is concerned, it is the responsibility of the state to lay an underground drainage system to ensure the safety of the citizens. However, laying slabs over the open drains without obstructing the free flow of drain water would not have any adverse implications or cause public inconvenience. On the contrary, laying of slabs over the open drains would ensure the safety of the citizens. On these considerations, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to disturb/demolish the slabs laid on the drain for ingress and egress to the building of the petitioners.”

“… the vindicative acts of the respondents are evident from the way the occupancy certificate for a constructed building is denied all these days. The respondents also resorted to disrupting the access to the building”, the Court added.

Background

The petitioners had obtained the land for construction of the building on a 33-year lease and had paid the requisite fee, property tax, building approval fee towards the same. Despite this, the authorities kept denying issuance of occupancy certificate and exhibited a hostile approach towards the petitioners.

In their writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondents, the petitioners submitted that Municipality officials, who visited the site during construction, were satisfied that the building was being constructed within permissible limits and no discrepancies were pointed out that could lead to refusal of grant of the occupancy certificate. Thus, the petitioner urged that occupancy certificate could not be denied without a substantial cause. It was further submitted that the licensed technical person (LTP), who works under the instructions and supervision of the respondent authorities, had denied access to the online portal, thereby, disabling petitioner from uploading necessary documents and compelling them to submit physical documents, and the same was alleged to be motivated by the authorities on account of political differences between the petitioners and the party in power.

In contrast, the Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation (Respondent 3) argued that the petitioners were trying to evade the impact fee of Rs.25,00,000 due. Further, the respondents alleged that while the Rule 3(22) of the AP Building Rules 2017 (2017 Rules) mandates online submission of documents of shortfalls, the respondent authorities, having received the physical documents from the petitioner, referred the matter to the Government for their opinion for passing necessary orders and the matter was pending consideration with the Government.

The Court referred to Rule 3(10)(a)(i) of the 2017 Rules which entitle applicants to submit online applications for building permission, and Rule 3(33) which mandates that upon receipt of a notice of completion, the sanctioning authority must inspect and verify the building and issue occupancy certificate if no shortfalls are notified.

In light of these provisions, the Court held,

“As seen from the facts of the present case, the shortfalls were notified to the petitioner, and the petitioner had complied with the shortfalls, apart from submitting one more set of documents, complying with the shortfalls, in the physical form in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 21.08.2025. Rule 3(10)(a)(i) Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 would entitle the applicant to apply for permission in writing or through online. Rule 3(22) of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017, is not applicable to the facts of the case, as the construction of the petitioners had passed the stage of permission for construction. The building is completed and is awaiting the issuance of an occupancy certificate.”

With respect to the argument that the respondents were awaiting to hear from the Government before moving forward, the Court held that the same does not hold ground as the reference to the Government appears to be on account of the petitioners submitting shortfalls in physical form, which was anyway permissible under Rule 3(10)(a)(i) of 2017 Rules.

With respect to the impact fee payable, the Court directed Respondent 3 to determine the same and notify the petitioner accordingly. On payment of the same, the occupancy certificate was directed to be issued to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 20853 OF 2025

Case Title: YUVAJANA SHRAMIKA RYTHU CONGRESS PARTY(YSRCP) v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

Click Here To Read/Download Order