IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 13050 of 2004 Between: G. Subramanium, S/o. Dorai Swamy, R/o. 4-4-194, Lala Temple Bazar, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep., by the Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, 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 will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent for demolition of the premises NO.4-4-194 and issuing of notice for demolition as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently stay the of demolition of the premises No. 4-4-194 situated at Lala gudi Bazar. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MURALI NARAYAN BUNG Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.RAMA RAO GANTA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR M.C.H. The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioner is tenant of premises bearing No.4-4-193 & 194 situated at Lala Gudi Bazar, Secunderabad. There were civil disputes between the petitioner and the landlord of the premises, Smt.Tulsi Bai. It is alleged that though the building is in good condition, the landlord with mala fide intention influenced the Municiapal Corporation of Hyderabad to issue show cause notice dt.19.7.2004 to petitioner to vacate the building for demolition on the ground that the same is in dilapidated condition. Petitioner submitted representations on 28.6.2004, 20.7.2004 and 22.7.2004. Even before any decision is taken by the respondent on the representations of petitioner, he filed the present Writ Petition. It is now axiomatic that against any notice issued by a public authority, ordinarily an application/petition for judicial review is not maintainable (See State of U.P. v. Shri Brahma Datta Sharma and this Court in Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling v. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, K.Veerabhadrudu v. Spl. Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare). If the petitioner has already submitted explanation to the impugned notice, the respondent shall dispose of the same before taking any action under Section 459 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 27.7.2004 bnr Note: Operative portion of the order may be communicated by wire at party’s cost. (B.O) bnr ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2.2CCs to Sri Ganta Rama Rao, SC for Municipal Corpn. Of Hyderabad 3.2CD copies