Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ (Oral):

1. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 10.11.2025, passed in W.P.No.20853 of 2025. The Writ Petition came to be filed by the petitioners, aggrieved of the fact that, despite having obtained permission to construct through an online approval process, and despite the building in question having since been completed, the authorities were refusing to issue the Occupancy Certificate, which would have enabled the petitioners to occupy the premises in question.

2. The learned Single Judge, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, while allowing the Writ Petition, held that the authorities could not have, without any justifiable cause, denied the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate and were, in fact, duty-bound to issue such an Occupancy Certificate once the building was completed in all respects and found fit for occupation.

3. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant – Corporation would submit that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge was legally unsustainable, inasmuch as the issue with regard to issuance of Occupancy Certificate is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017, and in particular Rules 3(31) and 3(32).

                  Our attention was drawn to the provisions of sub-rule (31) of Rule 3, which envisages every owner/developer to submit a Notice of Completion, in the prescribed form, to the authority regarding completion of the building works.

                  The Notice of Completion is required to be submitted duly signed by the Licensed Technical Personnel (LTP) who has supervised the construction, accompanied by two sets of completion plans along with the documents, which are more elaborately reflected in sub-rule (31) of Rule 3.

                  Sub-rule (32) of Rule 3 further envisages that ‘the sanctioning authority or the person authorized, on receipt of the Notice of Completion shall undertake an inspection to verify aspects as regards the height of the building, number of floors, setbacks, usage of the building, parking space provision, abutting road width, Rain Water Harvesting Structures, if applicable, etc.’.

                  It was also emphatically urged that the mere fact that the permission had been obtained by the applicant/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein would not necessarily imply that the construction, for which approval was granted, was strictly in accordance with either the plans approved, or were otherwise in accord with the rules and regulations governing the construction of buildings.

                  In the instant case, it was urged that certain deviations were found, which were communicated to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein by way of an order passed under Section 452, which itself is the subject matter of earlier writ petitions. It is stated that the directions passed in those writ petitions bearing No.13396 of 2024 and 13421 of 2025 are a matter of record. It is further stated that the authority concerned is statutorily obliged to consider the relevant factors and satisfy itself whether it is a fit case for grant of Occupancy Certificate or not.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/petitioners, on the other hand, would submit that although an attempt was made to upload the application for grant of Occupancy Certificate online, yet deliberate attempts were made to block the uploading of the said application on account of politically motivated considerations.

5. It is stated that a copy of the completion notice and application seeking grant of Occupancy Certificate has even physically been handed over to the Commissioner of Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation, which learned Advocate General states was not fully compliant with the Rules.

6. It is fairly stated by learned Advocate General that, in case the application is filed afresh in accordance with the Rules and the requirements thereof, the same would be considered by the appropriate authority and an order passed within the statutory period of fifteen (15) days.

7. Since an apprehension is expressed by learned counsel for the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein that they may be prevented from submitting the application online, we, with a view to do complete justice, permit the petitioners’ counsel to furnish a copy of the application, complete in all respects, in the office of Mr. A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, who shall forward the same within four (4) days from today. A copy shall also be submitted before the Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation, yet again.

8. In case the Commissioner finds that there are certain deviations which are minor in character and are capable of being compounded in accordance with the prevailing rules and regulations, then the Commissioner shall, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners, proceed to compound the same in accordance with the Rules and thereafter process and consider the grant of the Occupancy Certificate.

9. While a lot of apprehension has been expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy, that the entire effort of the Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation, is to deny to the petitioners the Occupancy Certificate for the construction, which, according to him, is in accordance with the Rules, we deem it appropriate to make it clear that the duty to do justice is not confined to Judges sitting in Courts of law. Every such officer is similarly enjoined to act fairly while deciding a matter that comes before him, particularly when such decision touches the lives and rights of an applicant and visits him with civil consequences. Ultimately, it is the officer concerned who may be answerable to his own conscience at the end of the day as to whether the order passed by him was fair in all respects or not.

                  While observing so, we would not expect the officer concerned to go contrary to the rules and regulations, which prescribe strict standards of compliance, before an Occupancy Certificate can be issued in favour of any applicant, irrespective of the position the applicant holds.

10. We would therefore require the Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation, to apply the aforementioned principles in deciding the issue at hand, with a view to allay any fears which the petitioners have that they may not be get justice at his hands.

11. The judgment and order impugned shall stand modified to that extent.

                  This Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

                  No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any, in this case, shall stand closed.