HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28844 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondent for issuing show cause notice dated 12.9.2011 in revocation of building permission under Section 450 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, dated 9.11.2010 in respect of premises No.3-5-782/52/3/B/1 (Part) vide Permit No.19/26 dated 27.8.2010 with approved sanctioned plan of the scheduled property as void and illegal, liable to be suspended and against the principles of natural justice. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of an open plot admeasuring 142.22 sq. yards situated at Bungalow Ghaf, King Kothi, Hyderabad, having acquired from her ancestors under Registered Release Deed dated 14.3.1981, obtained permission for construction of ground plus 1st floor from the respondent, that as the neighbours lodged the complaint, the respondent has cancelled the building permission of the petitioner without issuing any notice, which was set aside by this Court vide its order dated 4.8.2011 in W.P.No.21970 of 2011, that then the petitioner has approached the Municipal authorities for obtaining permission in the month of February, 2009, but the Municipal authorities asked him to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Government Department for permission, as such in the month of May, 2009, he applied to the District Collector, Hyderabad for issuance of such certificate in respect of the schedule property and thereafter the District Collector after enquiry, has issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner and thereafter in the month of March, 2010, the petitioner applied for building permission and got the same approved and proceeded with the construction and thereafter the present show cause notice was issued by the respondent corporation on 12.9.2011, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the permission granted to him would not be cancelled within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of that notice. Hence, the writ petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the approved plan obtained by the petitioner is in accordance with rules and regulations and hence he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent contended that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner and Younus Bin Omer Jabari and therefore, the show-cause notice was issued so far to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to why the permission should not be cancelled and therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to give an explanation and hence the writ petition is not maintainable and he prays to dismiss the same. 6. It is not in dispute before this Court that the respondent has granted building permission after enclosing ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the District Collector dated 22.1.2010 for construction of ground and first floor in the premises No.3-5-782/52/B/B/1, situated at King Khoti, Hyderabad, with permission No.19/26 dated 27.8.2010. It was brought to the notice of the respondent that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner and another in O.S.No.507 of 2009 on the file of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and also O.S.No.2274 of 2010 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the neighbours have produced their registration document, which would reveal that the land of the petitioner is over lapping on the land of neighbours. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to give explanation to the notice dated 12.9.2011. Instead of giving explanation, the petitioner rushed to this Court and filed the present writ petition. 7. It is not the case of the petitioner that the person who issued the notice lacks jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the impugned order is only show-cause notice, the petitioner is at liberty to give explanation for the same and thereafter the respondent can take appropriate decision basing on the explanation that may be given by the petitioner. In view of the fact that the time given for giving explanation has been expired, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to give proper explanation within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the respondent shall take appropriate decision in accordance with rules and regulations after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 29.10.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28844 OF 2011 Date:29.10.2011 Gk.