THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12931 OF 2010 Dated: 16.06.2010 Between : 1. M. Sunitha and another. … Petitioners And The Municipal Corporation of Nellore, rep. by Its Commissioner, Nellore,Nellore Dt. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12931 OF 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notice dated 3.5.2010 issued by the respondents – Municipal Corporation of Nellore – under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, ‘HMC Act’) directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction of rooms in stilt floor at Dheeraj Heights Apartments, Door No.24-2-990, Plot Nos.850, 851, 852 & 857 of LP.No.101/1995, Magunta Layout, Nellore within 24 hours. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. A perusal of the material available on record shows that W.P.No.2392 of 2004 filed by one Kotareddy Mrudula assailing the inaction on the part of the respondent Corporation in taking steps to remove the unauthorized constructions made by the petitioner herein was disposed of by this Court by order dated 3.8.2009 with directions as under: “For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent-Commissioner to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.12.2003, and to take appropriate steps for removal of unauthorized constructions, by duly following the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. Further, it is made clear that if any orders are passed for regularizing the structures, it is open for the 2nd respondent to place such orders before the competent authority.” Pursuant thereto, the respondent herein issued notice dated 29.03.2010 under Section 461 and 452 of the HMC Act directing the writ petitioner herein to remove the unauthorized construction or to give explanation within seven days as to why the unauthorized construction made in the stilt floor should not be removed. As the petitioner failed to submit any explanation nor the unauthorized constructions were removed, the impugned notice dated 3.5.2010 was issued under Section 636 of the HMC Act to remove the said constructions within 24 hours failing which action would be initiated departmentally as per the provisions of the HMC Act and the incidental expenditure would be collected from the petitioner. The fact that the notice dated 29.03.2010 under Section 461 and Section 452 of the HMC Act was served on the petitioner is not disputed before this Court. As could be seen from order in W.P.No.2392 of 2004, the writ petitioner had admitted the fact of making illegal constructions in the stilt floor of the premises in question. However it is pleaded that the petitioner had applied for regularization of the said structures under the Building Penalization Scheme by duly paying the required demand draft dated 31.03.2008 and the said application was pending with the respondents for consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the petitioner’s application under Building Penalization Scheme is pending, the impugned action of the respondents in issuing the final notice dated 3.5.2010 for removal of the said structures is arbitrary and illegal. However the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation while submitting that regularization of the constructions made in the stilt area did not come under the purview of Building Penalization Scheme, contended that the regularization as sought by the petitioner was impermissible even under the Building Penalization Scheme. It is also submitted that no application for regularization as claimed by the petitioner is pending with the Corporation. Nothing could be placed before this Court to show that the petitioner had ever made any application for regularization of the unauthorized construction made in the stilt area. Except a vague plea in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that she applied for regularization duly paying the required fees by demand draft dated 31.03.2008, nothing could be placed before this Court to substantiate the petitioner’s claim that her request for regularization is pending with the Corporation. The order dated 3.8.2009 in W.P.No.2392 of 2004 shows that even in the earlier round of litigation the petitioner failed to produce any proof in support of the contention that her representation for regularization of the constructions in question was pending before the Corporation. As a matter of fact, it was already held by this Court in W.P.No.2392 of 2004 that pendency of any such application was not a ground to prevent the Municipality from initiating steps for removing the unauthorized constructions. However, while disposing of the said writ petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner to place before the competent authority if any orders were passed for regularizing the structures. Admittedly the petitioner failed to produce any such order. As noticed above, the impugned notice under Section 636 of the HMC Act for removal of unauthorized structures was issued after affording ample opportunity to the petitioner to make her representation if any against the proposed action. As the petitioner failed to make out any case to show that the proposed action was not justified, there is absolutely no reason to hold that the impugned action of the respondent is arbitrary or illegal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.06.2010 gbs