IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 25423 of 2008 Between: B.Poornima W/o.B.K. Guruprasad R/o.D.No.6/5-502, Maruthi Nagar, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Anantapur, represented by its Commissioner, Anantapur. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from demolishing the building complex of the petitioner (residential plots) situated in Plot Nos. 9 and 10, T.S.No.61, Venkatarao Nagar extension, Sreenagar Colony Road, Anantapur and without passing appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner for regularization bearing No. BPS/618/2008/G2, dated 30.4.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON O R D E R:- This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a direction to the respondents to forbear from demolishing the building complex of the petitioner (residential plots) in Plot Nos.9 and 10, T.S.No.61, situated in Venkataraonagar Extension, Sreenagar Colony Road, Ananthapur and further direct them to consider the petitioner’s application dated 30.4.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner asserts that he purchased Plot Nos.9 and 10, in T.S.No.61, admeasuring Ac.15.47 cents of land situated in Venkataraonagar Extension, Sreenagar Colony Road, Ananthapur under a registered sale deed dated 5.2.2007. After purchasing the plots, he applied to the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation for grant of permission to construct a multistoried building consisting of stilt, ground and four upper ﬂoors, and accordingly, permission was granted on 8.10.2007. In pursuance of the permission, he proceeded with the construction. Since he committed certain violations of the sanctioned plan, he submitted an application dated 30.4.2008 to the 1st respondent seeking regularization of his constructions in accordance with the building penalization scheme. While so, the 1st respondent issued a Notice dated 7.11.2008 calling upon him to show cause within a period of ten days as to why the constructions made by him in deviation of the sanctioned plan, should not be demolished. When the petitioner sought for time to submit his explanation, the 1st respondent refused to extent time. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent, without considering his application, dated 30.4.2008, is trying to demolish the constructions made by him in the plots. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the 2nd respondent. Having considered the submissions made by both the parties, this Court is of the view that the respondents ought to have disposed of the petitioner’s application, dated 30.4.2008. Further, when it is the petitioner’s case that the building penalization scheme provides for regularization of constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and admittedly, he made an application to that eﬀect, the 1st respondent ought not to have issued Show Cause Notice. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The respondents are directed to consider the application dated 30.4.2008 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 20.11.2008 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s cost. B/o bcj