THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.23329 of 2011 Dated 25th August, 2011 Between: D.Omprakash …Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, rep.by its Commissioner and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Rama Mohan Mahadev Counsel for respondents: Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings bearing No.556/ACP/C4/GHMC/2011, dated 11.08.2011, of respondent No.2. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the same was issued under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) calling upon the petitioner to remove structures in which several businesses are being run in the stilt area meant for parking. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is inter alia stated that in the area meant for parking, several shops are being run resulting in parking of the vehicles in public places obstructing the traffic and therefore, the notice under Section 636 of the Act was issued. On 24.08.2011, Sri K.Rama Mohan Mahadev, learned counsel for the petitioner, requested for an adjournment for filing an appropriate affidavit. Accordingly, he has filed the affidavit of D.Omprakash, the petitioner in the writ petition, wherein he has agreed to remove the constructions raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan as alleged in the notice issued under Section 636 of the Act, within two months. Inasmuch as the deviations are in existence for more than two decades, the time of two months sought by the petitioner is reasonable. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to remove the constructions made in the parking area of the premises bearing No.17-2-555/1 and 2, within two months from today as undertaken by the petitioner. In default of complying with the undertaking given by the petitioner, the respondents shall remove the same without further notice to the petitioner or the occupants of the shops, besides initiating appropriate action against the petitioner for violation of the undertaking. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28550 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th August, 2011 VGB