THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 6252 OF 2010 DATE: 22-3-2010 Between: Shaik Mohammed Bin Abdullah … Petitioner And 1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another . … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 6252 OF 2010 ORDER: Apprehending demolition of the shop in which he is carrying on business, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The 2nd respondent vide letter dated 23.2.2010 called upon the petitioner to attend the office for verification of the documents to ascertain as to whether the property in question was gifted to him. It is the petitioner’s case that he had approached the office of the 2nd respondent on 1.3.2010 but was informed that the document could not be verified as the period prescribed in the notice dated 23.2.2010 had already expired. The petitioner would assert that he was orally informed that the building would be demolished necessitating his having to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned notice dated 23.2.2010 has been issued by the Asst. City Planner, Circle No.V, GHMC informing the petitioner that he was using the cellar for the purpose of shops and godown . The petitioner was directed to submit a copy of the registered ownership document and copy of Municipal sanctioned plan if any to the office of the Assistant City Planner within three days for verification failing which action would be initiated as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Sri R.Radhakrsihna Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the GHMC would submit that the petitioner’s apprehension of demolition of the building in question is without basis; that the respondents would put the petitioner on notice before any action is initiated for demolition and it is only after giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard, would action be taken if need be for demolition of the building in question. In view of the submission now made by the Learned Standing Counsel it is evident that the petitioner’s apprehension is baseless. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the respondents not to demolish the building in question except after notice in writing to the petitioner and after giving him an opportunity of being heard. No order as to costs. ____________ 22-3-2010 asp