THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.29746 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 306 square yards at B.K.Guda, Hyderabad. He constructed ground + four floors, by engaging a Contractor. The petitioner states that part of the construction is in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.901 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M.I), dated 03.11.2007 providing for regularization of unauthorized construction. The petitioner submitted an application in terms of the G.O. The payment as provided for under the G.O., was also made. The application was rejected through the intimation, dated 05.07.2010, on the ground that the petitioner made construction, after the stipulated date. The petitioner contends that the builder engaged by him, by name Srinivasa Rao, raised several disputes against him and on a baseless complaint made to the effect that the construction was made subsequent to the stipulated date, i.e. 15.12.2007, the application was rejected. The petitioner further contends that he was not put on notice, before the impugned order was passed. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. According to them, the inspection of the premises was conducted on 06.07.2010, and the concerned officials have reported that the petitioner started construction of third and fourth floors after the cut off date. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Dr.Y.Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.901, exercising power under Section 455-AA of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act (for short ‘the Act’), providing for regularization of unauthorized constructions. A person, who intends to seek benefit under the Act, must not only pay the amount that ought to have been paid for seeking permission, but also penalty. Clause 7 of the G.O., directs that, in case the request of an applicant cannot be acceded to, the amount paid along with the application is also liable to be forfeited, apart from the right of the Municipal Corporation to demolish the premises. When the consequences are so serious, the Corporation is under obligation to examine each and every aspect carefully. If any finding is to be recorded against the applicant, he must be given an opportunity to explain. An application cannot be rejected by the Corporation by forming an opinion by itself. The only ground mentioned in the impugned order is that the petitioner has started construction of third and fourth floors, after the stipulated date i.e. 15.12.2007. Before arriving at that conclusion, the respondents ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his version. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. The impugned order shall be treated as a notice to the petitioner informing him that the respondents are of the view that the third and fourth floors of the building in question were constructed after 15.12.2007. It shall be open to the petitioner to submit his explanation or offer remarks, within (3) three weeks from today. The respondents shall take the same into account, before passing any order. They shall also give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till such process is completed, no penal steps shall be taken against the building in question. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15.02.2011. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ