THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23754 of 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against the notice issued on 29.07.2010 under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). The writ petitioner, who is the owner of a commercial complex situate at Kukatpally, has been served with a notice under section 636 of the Act, alleging that there is no parking facility/insufficient parking facility/violation of designated parking place and thus causing inconvenience to the inmates of the building and rest of the road users. In view of the order that is now proposed to be passed, I consider it not necessary to record all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner or the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. Ms. P. Radhika, learned counsel for the writ petitioner is right in pointing out that the building in question has been erected after obtaining necessary permission/clearances from the Urban Development Authority as well as the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and if the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has noticed any deviations in the constructions so made, from the approved building plan, a show cause notice ought to have been issued under sub-section (1) of Section 452 of the Act and thereafter, taking into account and consideration the objections raised and the material produced, an appropriate decision has to be taken. The provisions under Section 636 of the Act can be invoked only in case no permission has been obtained and any constructions or structures are put up without any such permission. According to the learned counsel, since the writ petitioner has obtained building permission and thereafter only erected the building, a show cause notice in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 452 of the Act ought to have been issued before any action for its removal is undertaken. Heard Sri M. Dhananjaya Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. Ms. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has taken notice and she has also consented for the disposal of this Writ Petition in the following manner:- The impugned notice, though is allegedly issued in terms of Section 636 of the Act, may be construed as one issued in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 452 of the Act and the writ petitioner be provided 15 days’ time from today to file his detailed explanation together with the necessary material and the same be considered and examined by the respondent-Corporation before any final order in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 452 is passed. Till the entire process is thus accomplished, no demolition shall be undertaken. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 27th September 2010 ksld