IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14374 of 2008 Between: 1 G. Yadagiri S/o. Late Bachaiah H.No. 4-115/1, Ramanthapur Area, Uppal mandal, Ranga Reddy Distirct. 2 G. Satyanarayana S/o. Late Bachaiah H.No. 5-116, Indiranagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal mandal, Ranga Reddy Distirct. 3 Uday Pratap Singh S/o. Phoolchand Singh R/o. Peerjadiguda Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Anil Kumar Singh S/o. Phoolchand Singh R/o. Peerjadiguda Village, Uppal mandal, Ranga Reddy district. 5 Shamsheer Bahadur Singh S/o. Deepchand Singh R/o. Peerjadiguda Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 Shyam Sunder Singh S/o. Late Deepchand Singh R/o. Peerjadiguda Village, Uppal mandal, Ranga Reddy district. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 The Deputy Municipal Commissioner Uppal Circle, Ranga Reddy distirct. 3 The Station house Officer, Uppal P.S. Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Maharaja Public School, Ramanthpur, Uppal mandal, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Correspondent Smt. P.Vidya Rani. H.No. 3-4-117 & 118, Ramanthapur, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dsitrict. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in taking consequential action having issued the Statutory notice vide Lr./Roc.No. D/309/2007 dated 15-5-2007 by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner Uppal Circle, Greater hyderabad Municipal Corporaqtion by invoking the provisions of Section 456 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 ( herein after referred to as the "Act") for removing old existing structure i.e. building bearing No.3-4-117 & 3-4-118 situated at Ramanthapur, Uppal mandal, Ranga Reddy District which are in ruinous/ dilapidated condition and which are likely to fall at any time endanger to any person or persons occupying or passing nearly such structure or to the inhabitants of that locality or neighbourhood and the children who are preosecuting their studies in the above premises which is being run by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the true intent of the provisions of the Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners who are six in number assailing the inaction of 1st and 2nd respondents consequent on notice dated 15.5.2007 issued under section 456 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to 4th respondent- the Maharaja Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. The petitioners are owners of premises bearing No.3-4-117 and 3-4-118, Ramanthapur, Uppal, Hyderabad. The premises has been let out to 4th respondent- school. Reports came to be submitted to 2nd respondent-Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Uppal Circle, Hyderabad with regard to the dilapidated structures existing in the premises bearing No. 3-4-117 and 3-4-118, Ramanthapur, Uppal, Hyderabad. Thereupon, 2nd respondent issued notice under section 456 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 directing the petitioners to remove the structures existing on the premises. Thereupon the petitioners issued notice to 4th respondent seeking vacation of the premises. Since 1st and 2nd respondents have not taken any action pursuant to the notice under section 456 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 the petitioners chose to approach this Court. When this Writ Petition came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 1st and 2nd respondents took notice. Notice sent to R3 is served but he neither appeared in person nor through a counsel. Notice sent to R4 returned with an endorsement “addressee unclaimed”. Hence, notice sent to R4 is deemed to have been effected. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for 1st and 2nd respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the premises is in occupation of 4th respondent and 1st and 2nd respondents having issued notice under section 456 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 has to pass further orders in accordance with the provisions of the law. Indisputably, the premises in occupation of 4th respondent is required to be demolished and service of notice on 4th respondent is mandatory. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing 1st and 2nd respondents to serve notice under section 456 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 on 4th respondent and thereafter pass appropriate orders putting on notice to the effected parties. 11th August, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14374_08 11TH AUGUST 2008