IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.7679 of 2009 Between: Hanuthram Bhati S/o. Jogiram Bhati R/o. Premises No.15-7-394/A, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner, having its Office at Tank Bund, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notices U/s.459 of HMC Act dated 24.02.2009, Sl.No.169/ACP/CS/GHMC/09 issued by the respondent in respect of property bearing Municipal No's.15-7-394/A and 15-7-395, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and issue such other writ or order or directions. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.V.V.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: SMT. KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.7679 of 2009 ORDER:- The petitioner claims to be the tenant of Mulgies bearing Nos.15-7-394/A and 15-7-395 situated at Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, wherein he has been running business for more than twenty years and the premises is in good condition. While so, the respondent-Commissioner issued notices dated 24.02.2009 indicating that the said mulgies are in dilapidated condition and likely to collapse at any moment, thereby endangering the lives of the inmates of the building and the public passing through the road, and directed the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated under Section 459 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Then, the petitioner submitted his explanation/ objections dated 12.03.2009 to the impugned notices, but his grievance is that on 20.03.2009, the subordinates of the respondent, without following the procedure contemplated under the Act, threatened to demolish the premises in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the premises in question is in good condition and that the petitioner has submitted his explanation/objections on 12.03.2009, and the respondent, without considering the same and passing final orders thereon, is threatening to demolish the premises in question. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the explanation/objections filed by the petitioner to the impugned notices is under consideration before the respondent and unless and until final order is passed on the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 456 of the Act, the respondent will not take any action to demolish the premises in question. Since the explanation said to have been filed by the petitioner on 12.03.2009 to the impugned notices is under consideration before the respondent, and having regard to the stand taken by the respondent-Commissioner that they shall not resort to demolition of the premises till final order is passed on the explanation/objection filed by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondent-Commissioner is directed to consider the explanation/objections said to have been filed by the petitioner on 12.03.2009 and pass appropriate final orders thereon as contemplated under Section 456 of the Act. Till such final orders are passed, the respondent shall not resort to any kind of demolition of the premises in question.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 17th April, 2009 IBL