HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.20988 of 2010 Date : 23-8-2011 Between: Ramesh Chawla s/o. Manohar Chawla Represented by GPA Holder Subhash Chawla, Secunderabad. .. Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.3 : Srinivas Polavarapu The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the notice issued in proceedings No.23/TPS/CR- 16/NZ/GHMC/2010, dated 5-7-2010 by respondent No.1 under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, (for short "the Act") without disposing of the petitioner’s application dated 28-6-2010, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned Counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner has constructed a building, which was, allegedly without a sanctioned plan. Respondent No.1 has issued notice dated 11-6-2010 under Section 452 of the Act. The petitioner has submitted his reply dated 28-6-2010 whereunder he has requested respondent No.1 to regularize the construction made by him under Section 455- A of the Act. By the impugned proceedings, respondent No.1, while stating that the request for regularization was not satisfactory, directed to demolish the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner. On the premise that without disposing of the petitioner’s application for regularization, respondent No.1 has passed the order under Section 636 of the Act directing demolition of the building, the Writ Petition is filed. A careful reading of the impugned proceedings would show that respondent No.1-Commissioner has stated therein that while submitting the explanation dated 28-6- 2010 to the notice issued under Section 452 of the Act, the petitioner requested for regularization of the unauthorized construction under Section 455-A of the Act and that the same cannot be considered as he has not satisfied the conditions specified thereunder. As rightly pointed out by Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, with the refusal to regularize the unauthorized construction in the impugned proceedings itself, the petitioner’s application for regularization is deemed to have been disposed of. Therefore, the whole premise on which the Writ Petition is filed, namely, that without disposing of the petitioner’s application dated 28-6-2010 for regularization, the impugned proceedings should not have been issued, cannot be sustained. In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 23-8-2010 is vacated and WPMP No.26714/2010 and WVMP No.2280/2011 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 23-8-2011 AM