IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13393 of 2010 Between: M.A.Ayuoob Khan and others. …PETITIONERS AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.13393 OF 2010 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not receiving the application, proposed plan and permit fees from the petitioners for issuance of building permission and insisting the petitioners for getting ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the second respondent- District Collector, for construction of a building over a extent of 600 sq.yards under plot No.89-A in survey No.102/1 of Hakeempet Village, Golconda Revenue Mandal, situated at M.L.A. Colony, Road No.12, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. The question raised in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra. This Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited V. Collector, Hyderabad District and another[1] and District Collector V. N.Krishna Mohan[2], having considered an identical question, held that the authority cannot refuse to receive the building permission application on the ground of not furnishing “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” from the Revenue Authorities. In the light of the ratio laid down in the above decisions, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to consider the application made by the petitioners seeking permission to construct a building in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and the Rules made thereunder, without insisting on production of “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” from the second respondent-District Collector. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J JUNE 15, 2010. YVL [1] 2001(3) ALT 200 [2] 2000(3) ALT 225