HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1071 of 2011 JUDGMENT(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 01.11.2011 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.24810 of 2010 and batch. 2. The respondents issued a notice on 25.09.2010 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 462(1)(c) read with Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘ the Act’) requiring the occupants of the mulgies situated at Fazal Manzil, Sadar Bazar, Karimnagar, to vacate the building. 3. The notice was challenged by the appellants and during the course of hearing, the learned single Judge required the Head of Department of Civil Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) to inspect the building by himself or cause to be inspected by faculty members who have specialized knowledge in structural engineering. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge, a report was given by the Head of Department of Civil Engineering, JNTU. The report stated that the building did not meet the requirements of safety and stability laid down by existing codes of practice for a habitable building. 5. The appellants raised an objection to the report stating that no notice was issued to them before the inspection was carried out. Accordingly, a fresh inspection was carried out after due notice to the appellants. The report given after notice remains the same. We extract herewith some of the observations made in the subsequent report dated 18.11.2010:- 1. The building is reported to be more than 70 years old. 2. The mortar in the structure has lost its binding strength at many places. 3. Extreme corrosion of reinforcement is observed at many places. 4. The joints in the brickwork has disintegrated at many places making the walls vulnerable for collapse. 5. The building is in dilapidated condition and parts of the structure have already collapsed. 6. Extreme cracks and leakage are observed in many places in the building including slabs. 7. Most of the slab portion has sagged beyond acceptable limits. 8. The building does not satisfy the safety requirements stipulated by the codes of practice. 9. Vegetation is observed at some places on the roof. 6. On the basis of the reports that were submitted, the learned single Judge found no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, dismissed the same. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants are now before us. 8. It is submitted that in terms of Section 456 of the Act, the Commissioner has an option either to pull down or to secure or to remove or to repair the structure or thing and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom. It is submitted that there was no application of mind to the question whether the building could be renovated or not. 9. In our opinion, the determination by the Commissioner in this regard is a matter of fact based on the material that is available. On the facts of this case, we find that the notice dated 25.09.2010 clearly mentions that a decision had earlier been taken after physical verification of the building and the existing mulgies; that they are in a dilapidated condition and not suitable for habitation and there is a danger to the occupants as well as passers-by. 10. The decision earlier taken was challenged by some of the occupants of the building and in W.P.No.3343 of 2001, the Commissioner was directed to issue a notice to the occupants of the mulgies and to hear both sides and to pass appropriate orders. 11. Thereafter, the occupants of the mulgies produced a certificate stating that the building is suitable for habitation for a further period of five years and on that basis, the case was closed. Unfortunately, within one year, 7 mulgies as well as a part of the building collapsed. 12. Given this background, the Commissioner came to the conclusion, based on the report, that the construction of the building and the walls by the mud theras and rafts are totally damaged and weak in condition. The building is more than 70 years old and majority of the mulgies have collapsed and as such, there was a threat to the occupants of the building and mulgies. It was also observed that the roof of the building appeared to have cracks and about to fall down and it is being internally supported by the occupants by using iron rods. The condition of the building and mulgies over all is not suitable for habitation and there was a threat to the occupants as well as the passers by, if the building collapses. 13. Under these circumstances, the authorities came to the conclusion that the building was beyond repairs and deserved to be removed. The view of the authorities was being affirmed by the Head of Department of Civil Engineering, JNTU on more than one occasion. 14. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was not in error in dismissing the writ petition and upholding the notice dated 25.09.2010 issued by the respondents. 15. There is no merit in this appeal. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. 16. The interim applications are also dismissed. ____________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR , J Date:30.11.2011 sj