IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14847 of 2008 Between: Smt. Kantha S. Maru, W/o. Late Suryakanth Dungarshi Maru, R/o. Tenant in Premises No. 4-2-275, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad, Municipal Corporation, rep by its Commissioner, having its office at Tank bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. City Planner, Town Planning Section, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No. VI, having its Office at Municipal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 appropriate order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in threatening the petitioner with demolition of the shop bearing No. 4-2-275, situated at Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad on the ground the dilapidated condition without folloiwng procedure prescribed under the M.C.H. Act, as illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NYAYAPATHI PRASHANT Counsel for the Respondents.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt.Kantha S.Maru assailing the action of the respondents in making attempts to demolish the shop bearing No.4-2-275, situated at Sulthan Bazaar, Hyderabad, on the ground of dilapidated condition, without following the due process of law. 2. The petitioner ﬁled Municipal Appeal No.91 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, assailing the notice dated 16.04.2007 issued by the Assistant City Planner, Cirlce VI, GHMC, Hyderabad-2nd respondent. The said Municipal Appeal came to be allowed on 04.04.2008. The penultimate para of the judgment passed in M.A.No.91 of 2007 reads as hereunder: “Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in the above terms and impugned notice is set aside. It shall always be open for the ﬁrst and second respondents and their other oﬃcers to initiate appropriate action regarding the removal of or repairs to the premises in question after giving a proper opportunity to the appellant to putforth her case in the matter as required by Section 459 of the Act. It shall be open for the third respondent also to putforth his case before the concerned authorities. No costs.” 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation, on instructions, submits that the respondents will follow the due process of law as directed in M.A.No.91 of 2007. 4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents-Corporation to follow the due process of law in the event of the shop bearing No.4-2-275, situated at Sulthan Bazaar, Hyderabad, owned by the petitioner, is required to be demolished. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:07th August, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}