THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. 2226 of 2007 Dated 23–09-2010 Between: K.V.S.S. Narasimham …Petitioner Vs. Gunisetti Ravi and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 2226 of 2007 Oral Order: This revision is against the order dated 20-04-2007 passed in I.A.Sr.No. 8498 of 2007 in O.S.No. 371 of 2007, by the learned I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit (un-numbered) challenging a notice dated 16-04-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent – Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District, whereby the 1st respondent herein was intimated that his business, in the name and style of Sri Saibaba Steel Corporation, Pattebada, located adjacent to Vijaya Mess, an area which is earmarked as a residential locality under the master plan is prohibiting for commercial activities and therefore the business activity must be stopped forthwith and the material in the premises should be shifted elsewhere, failing which appropriate action under law would be initiated against the addressee. As the suit was filed without issuing one month’s notice in writing to the Eluru Municipal Corporation as required by the provisions of Section 685 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) (as applicable to the 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation), he filed an application – I.A.Sr.No.8498 of 2007 seeking dispensing with the requirement of serving a notice on the Municipal Corporation. By the docket order dated 20-04-2007 impugned herein, the Court below dispensed with the service of notice on the Municipal Corporation “for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.”. Assailing the same, the revision petitioner, who has been impleaded as 2nd defendant in the suit (as per the order of the Court below in I.A.No.1358 of 2007 dated 08-05-2007), has filed this revision. In Bansilal v. Special Officer, M.C.H.[1]; in Lalithraj v. M.C.H.[2]; in Dawarunnissa Begum v. Commissioner, M.C.H.[3] and in Religious Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam-2 v. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation[4], it is consistently declared that a suit filed without complying with the requirement of serving a notice as mandated in Section 685 of the Act is not maintainable. Section 685 of the Act, unlike Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not enable filing of a suit against a Municipal Corporation even in matters of urgency without serving of notice as mandated therein, nor is there a provision enabling dispensing with the mandatory requirement of serving of notice. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 20-04-2007 dispensing with the service of notice on the 2nd respondent – Municipal Corporation – is unsustainable. On the aforesaid analysis, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 20-04-2007 of the Court below in I.A.Sr.No. 8498 of 2007 in O.S.No. 371 of 2007, dispensing with the requirement by the plaintiff of issuing a notice to the 2nd respondent –Municipal Corporation – is set aside. Consequently, the plaint must be rejected. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 23-09-2010 Pvks [1] . 1981 (2) ALT 59. [2] . 1987 (2) ALT 6 (NRC). [3] . 1983 (1) ALT 51 (NRC) = 1983 (1) APLJ 10 (NRC). [4] 2003 (4) ALT 701 = 2003 (2) ALD 707