THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.C.NO.769 OF 2008 ORDER: This contempt case is instituted complaining violation of the Order passed by this Court on 29-04-2008 in W.P.M.P.No.12679 of 2008 in W.P.No.9602 of 2008. The following Order has been passed on 29-04-2008: “ The 1st respondent shall take all such necessary steps to ensure that the 2nd respondent carried on the construction strictly in accordance with the approved building plan.” The 1st respondent was the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. Therefore, he was required to take such necessary steps, which would ensure that the 2nd respondent carried on the construction strictly in accordance with the approved building plan. The respondent in the writ petition, though shown in the cause title in this contempt case, but however, an endorsement has been made that he is not a necessary party to this contempt case. The contents of the affidavit filed in support of this contempt case would disclose that the 1st respondent has willfully and wantonly flouted the Order passed by this Court on 29-04-2008. It is submitted that the Officers of the 1st respondent have not visited the site of the construction of the 2nd respondent even once, for them to know as to whether the 2nd respondent has been making constructions in his site in accordance with the approved building plan or not. When notice was issued before admission in this contempt case on 02-07-2009, the Commissioner and Special Officer of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation filed a detailed counter affidavit. In Paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that as per the records available with the respondent’s office, one Smt. Damera Padmaja, W/o Mohanacharyulu has obtained building permission for construction of ground + first floor in premises bearing No.12-10-399/4/1 of Seethaphalmandi in File No.1825/TPS/GHMC/SD/B1/2007, dated 01-09-2007, Permit No.178/25 of 2007 in a Plot area of 94.00 square meters. The said permission was granted in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.86, MA., dated 03-03-2006, wherein constructions, if sought to be made on a plot of less than 100.00 square meters or less than that, the setbacks on three sides are not mandatorily required to be left out and only the front setback is to be maintained. It is further submitted that Smt. Damera Padmaja, has made constructions even by the time the writ petition came to be instituted. In Paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit, the all-round setbacks maintained by Smt. Damera Padmaja have been noted, as under: Side Permitted Maintained Shortfall Ramarks Front 1.50 Mts. 1.50 Mts. Nil Erected part of staircase with portico projection Rear Nil 0.88 Mts. Nil -- Side-I Nil 0.70 Mts. Nil -- Side-II Nil 0.91 Mts. Nil -- It is, therefore, clear that Smt. Damera Padmaja has maintained setbacks on all the four sides of her building, hence, the question of not leaving any setback of the said building, is not a factually correct statement. However, certain deviations have been noticed relating to the projection of the part of the portico and hence, a notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, on 31-07-2009, calling upon the permit holder as to why action should not be initiated for the deviations. Thereafter, Smt. D. Muralidhara and another have approached the XIII Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Secunderabad and instituted O.S.No.440 of 2009 and also moved an interlocutory application I.A.No.328 of 2009, seeking temporary injunction restraining the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation from interfering with the property situated in premises bearing No. 12-10-399/4/1 of Seethaphalmandi, and that the Civil Court had granted an Order on 13-08-2009, directing both sides to maintain status quo. It is, therefore, urged that the allegation made by the petitioner herein that the 1st respondent has not taken any measures or steps to ensure that the constructions made by the 2nd respondent are strictly in accordance with the approved building permission, is clearly untenable. As per the counter affidavit, for making constructions in plots of the size of 100 square meters or less than that, setbacks on three sides need not be provided and setback only on the front side, i.e., roadside is needed to be provided. The counter affidavit has gone further to explain that the 2nd respondent in the writ petition has made construction by leaving certain area of setback on all the four sides of the building. It is, therefore, difficult for me to conclude that the 1st respondent Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, has not taken any steps for ensuring that the 2nd respondent will conform while making constructions in her plot with the sanctioned plan. I, therefore, dismiss this contempt case, but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 20th November 2009