THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 16645 of 2010 Dated: 14.07.2010 Between: Smt. Atuluri Devaki Venkata Lakshmi, Visakhapatnam and 2 others. … Petitioners And The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16645 of 2010 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent- Corporation in seeking to demolish the constructions made by the petitioner in Plot Nos. 38 and 39 of Srinivasa Cooperative House Building Society, in Sy.No.7 part of Resapuvanipalem, Seethammadhara as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation Sri N.Ranga Reddy. It is not disputed before this Court that a show cause notice dated 18.01.2010 was issued under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) alleging that the petitioners were proceeding with construction of centering for first floor over the existing ground floor building near Dr.No.50-117-7/4, in Sy.No.7 of Resapuvanipalem village, Seethammadhara in Srinivasa Cooperative layout in Ward No.9, Visakhapatnam, contrary to building rules and zoning regulations as well as G.O.Ms.No.678 dated 07.09.2007. The petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why the portions of the work, which were found contrary to the Rules should not be removed. According to the petitioners, the said notice dated 18.01.2010 was served on them only on 05.02.2010 and immediately thereafter the GPA holder of the petitioners attended the Office of the Corporation and explained that the construction activity was undertaken as per the provisions of the Act. However, on 18.02.2010 the staff of the Corporation came to the site and attempted to demolish the constructions in question under the guise of the final notice dated 15.02.2010 issued under Section 636 of the Act. The petitioners state that the said final notice dated 15.02.2010 was served on them only on 18.02.2010 directing to remove the alleged unauthorised constructions within 24 hours. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent-Corporation, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the final notice dated 15.02.2010 issued under Section 636 of the Act without taking into consideration the specific case of the petitioners that they proceeded with the constructions strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions is arbitrary and illegal apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice. The fact that the petitioners submitted a detailed explanation through their counsel on 19.02.2010 has not been disputed by the learned standing counsel for the Corporation. However, it is stated that by that time, the final notice was already issued on 15.02.2010. It is apparent that in the final notice for removal of structures, no finding as such was recorded on merits as to the alleged unauthorised constructions by the petitioners, but the said notice was issued only on the ground that the petitioners had failed to submit their explanation to the show cause notice. As a matter of fact, no time was specified in the show cause notice for submitting the explanation of the petitioners. Hence, the respondent was not justified in issuing the final notice directing removal of the constructions merely on the ground that the petitioners had failed to submit their explanation. Be that as it may, now that the explanation of the petitioners dated 19.02.2010 has been received by the respondent, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration and it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh on merits. Accordingly, the final notice dated 15.02.2010 issued by the respondent is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioners dated 19.02.2010 (submitted through their counsel) and then pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. ​ ____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 14.07.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o KLP