IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.19558 of 2011 Between: Smt.G.A.S.S.Jyothi. … Petitioner And The Kakinada Municipal Corporation, Kakinada, East Godavari District, reptd., by its Commissioner and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Chidambaram. Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy for R.1. Sri V.V.N.Narasimham for R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice in UC.No.6/2011-TPS-II/C, dated 11-7- 2011, of respondent No.1. The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of flat bearing Door No. 8-24-6, Manasa Park View Apartment, Opposite to Gandhinagar Park, Kakinada, East Godavari District. By the impugned notice, purportedly issued under Sections 452 and 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), respondent No.1 has called upon the petitioner to remove the construction, which was made in the stilt floor earmarked for parking. The only ground on which this notice is assailed is that no prior opportunity was given to the petitioner under Section 452 (1) of the Act; and that the notices, which are required to be issued under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act, are rolled into one. At the hearing, Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for respondent No.2, have not disputed the fact that the procedure followed by respondent No.1 is inherently defective because before issuing notice under Section 636 of the Act, a notice under Section 452(1) of the Act calling for objections, if any, from the owner or occupier of the building, as the case may be, shall be issued; and that it is only thereafter that a final notice under Section 636 of the Act requires to be issued. As respondent No.1 failed to follow this procedure, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. The petitioner is permitted to submit her objections treating the impugned proceeding as a notice under Section 452(1) of the Act within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of the objections, the same shall be considered by respondent No.1 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the explanation, if any, from the petitioner and further steps in accordance with the provisions of Section 636 of the Act may be taken if it is not satisfied with the explanation filed by the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.23640 of 2011 and WVMP No.3220 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:05-9-2011 MNR