THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Contempt Case No.977 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.9504 of 2009 Common Order: C.C. No. 977 of 2009 is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated 26.03.2009, passed in W.P. No. 6370 of 2009. The petitioners filed the main writ petition in W.P. No. 6370 of 2009 aggrieved by the action of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) in not taking any action on the representation, dated 16.03.2009, made by them complaining about the illegal constructions being made by the third respondent in the premises in question and this Court vide order, dated 26.03.2009, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the GHMC to consider the representation of the petitioners, dated 16.03.2009, and take necessary action after issuing necessary notice and affording opportunity to the affected parties, in accordance with law. Now, it is the case of the petitioners that though pursuant to the above order, they approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 on several occasions requesting them to consider their representation, dated 16.03.2009, and take necessary action, but no action thereon has been taken by them, and such inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in considering their representation, amounts to wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court and prayed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 be punished for contempt. On 21.08.2009, when the contempt case came up for hearing, it was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GHMC that one person by name P. Narsing Rao, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 9504 of 2009 seeking directions to GHMC not to interfere with the constructions being made by him in the property in question therein, which is the subject-matter of W.P.No.6370 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 26.03.2009 with the direction as stated supra and non-compliance of which, the contempt case is flied. This Court to ascertain as to whether the subject property in this writ petition is same as that of one in W.P.No.6370 of 2009, directed the Registry to post the said writ petition along with this contempt case. Accordingly, as directed, the Registry listed the said writ petition along with the contempt case for hearing today. W.P.No.9504 of 2009 is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-GHMC in interfering with the construction being carried on by the petitioner in the eastern portion of the premises bearing No.173/J/2, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad as illegal and arbitrary, wherein while issuing notice before admission, on 01.05.2009 this Court granted stay of demolition of the structures in the subject premises and also directed the petitioner not to make any further constructions, pending further orders. Be that as it may, pursuant to the notice issued in the contempt case, the second respondent filed counter affidavit in the matter. It is stated in the counter that pursuant to the orders of this Court, dated 26.03.2009, non-compliance of which, is complained in the contempt case, the Town Planning Wing of Circle-18 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has inspected the premises of respondent 3 and found that he was making unauthorized constructions in the subject premises. Thereupon, a notice, dated 18.05.2009, was issued to him under Section 452 of the HMC Act, 1955 to show cause as to why the said constructions should not be removed. As respondent 3 did not submit explanation to the show cause notice, final notice dated 13.08.2009, was issued under Section 636 of the HMC Act, 1955 for removal of the unauthorized constructions. However, it is stated that they could not take action for removal of the unauthorized constructions because the staff was busy with preparation of electoral rolls and other works relating to GHMC elections. It is further stated that while the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted explanation on 15.08.2009 inter alia stating that it is not the third respondent in the present contempt case, but he is the owner of the subject premises, and that he obtained interim directions not to demolish the constructions from this Court. That therefore the second respondent could not take further action in the matter. He, however, contended that pursuant to the orders of this Court, dated 26.03.2009, alleging non-compliance of which the present contempt case is filed, the representation of the petitioners was disposed of vide proceedings dated 20.08.2009, and the same was even communicated to the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not violated the orders of this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the parties made elaborate submissions. They submitted that the contempt petitioners and the writ petitioner are brothers and that there are family disputes between them. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that Mr. Raghu to whom GHMC is stated to have issued show cause notice and final notice calling upon him to remove the alleged illegal constructions, has nothing to do with the subject premises and that the writ petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.08.2009 to the notice issued by GHMC under Section 636 of the HMC Act, 1995, bringing to their notice various facts in this regard. Heard the learned counsel for the contempt petitioners, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for GHMC. Admittedly, this Court by order, dated 26.03.2009, passed in W.P.No.6370 of 2009, directed the GHMC to consider the representation of the contempt petitioners and alleging violation of the said order, the contempt case has been filed. Pursuant to the notice issued in the contempt case, the GHMC filed counter in the contempt case stating that pursuant to the orders, dated 26.03.2009, GHMC issued notice under Section 454 of the HMC Act, 1955 to one Raghu, who is the third respondent in the contempt case, to remove the unauthorized constructions made in the subject premises and as no explanation/objection whatsoever was received for the said notice, GHMC issued final notice under Section 636 of the HMC Act. However, it is the specific case of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.9504 of 2009 that he is the owner of the subject premises and Mr. Raghu, to whom GHMC has issued statutory notices has nothing to do with the subject premises, that there is no relationship whatsoever with him and that the GHMC has erroneously issued the notice to Mr.Raghu. Hence, it is clear that no notice whatsoever was issued by GHMC to the writ petitioner before issuing final notice under Section 636 of the HMC Act, 1955. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the final notice issued by GHMC cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In the circumstances, the learned counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition and the contempt case with the following directions: The final notice dated 13.08.2009, issued under Section 636 of HMC Act, 1955 is set aside. The respondent-GHMC shall issue notice to all the affected parties, and after considering the explanation, if any, to be submitted by them, and also the explanation, said to have been submitted by the writ petitioner on 15.08.2009, which was received by it on 17.08.2009, shall pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, status quo shall be maintained by the parties. The writ petitioner and the affected parties are at liberty to produce the documents, if any, to substantiate their claim before the GHMC on the date to be fixed by them. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to present himself on the date so fixed, the GHMC is at liberty to proceed further in the matter taking into consideration the material available on record, in accordance with law. No costs. Accordingly, the contempt case and the writ petition are disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:18.01.2010 VGB