IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9809 of 2009 Between: Smt. G. Sharada W/o. G. Balanarsimha R/o. 1-6-202/18/9/3, Bapujinagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle-9 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Sardarmahal, Chairman, 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned the Notice dt. 22-4-2009 in Letter No. 74/ACP/TPS/GHMC/2009 issued under Section 636 of HMC Act, and earlier notice dt. 7-4-2009 under Section 452 of HMC Act, issued by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300 A besides violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the ground and first floor in House Nos; 1-6- 202/18/A/9, and 1-6-2002/18/9/E , Bapuji Nagar, Musheerabad , Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.9809 of 2009 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notice dated 22.4.2009 issued by the first respondent-Corporation under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) directing the writ petitioner to pull down the unauthorized constructions made in the ground and first floor of the house bearing No.1-6-202/18/A/9 and 1-6-202/18/9/E, Bapuji Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Heard both sides. The impugned action has been admittedly initiated on a complaint made by the petitioner’s-neighbour by name Smt.G.Ramalaxmi. She filed a separate writ petition being W.P.No.1392 of 2009 alleging inaction on the part of the Corporation to take the necessary action for the unauthorized and illegal constructions made by the petitioner. The petitioner’s husband filed W.P.No.11190 of 2009 making allegations against the petitioner in W.P.No.1392 of 2009. The said writ petitions are disposed of by a common order dated 10.7.2009 with a direction to the respondents to make necessary enquiry in to the allegations and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks. Since the premises in respect of which the impugned notice is issued is the subject matter of the enquiry directed in the said two writ petitions, the impugned notice is hereby set aside leaving it open to the respondent-Corporation to initiate fresh action, if necessary, after the enquiry as directed in W.P.Nos.1392 of 2009 and 11190 of 2009 is concluded. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI 10th July, 2009 PNV