IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 24924 of 2008 BETWEEN: Ms. Vijaya Laxmi W/o. Sai Subramanyam, R/o. Vijayawada, Krishna District. ... PETITIONER AND Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada rep. by its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to declare the notice dt. 18.10.2008 passed in Er.No.101/08-T.P.B.O.X/A.C.P.-II of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and contrary to principles of natural justice by issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.G.JHANSI The Court made the following: ORDER: The writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt. Vijaya Laxmi, with a prayer to declare the notice dated 18.10.2008 passed in Er.No.101/08-T.P.B.O.X/A.C.P.-II issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of 62 sq. yards in R.S.No.383/B of Gunadala Village within the limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation under the registered sale deed dated 04.07.1999. The petitioner constructed a house and the house came to be assessed to tax and the Corporation gave D.No.51-1-72/C. While so, the respondent issued a notice dated 18.10.2008 alleging that the petitioner made construction on the drain and directed her to remove the constructions made by her within seven days. The said notice is purportedly issued under Sections 401(1), 402(1), 406 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) as applicable to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. 3. When the matter came up for admission, Smt. G. Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation took notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. A fact remains that the petitioner constructed the building and the building came to be assessed to tax. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner constructed the building on a drain and therefore, the construction made by the petitioner thereon is required to be removed. A notice under Sections 401 (1), 402 (1), 406 and 636 of the Act as applicable to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation came to be issued to the petitioner. There seems to be no explanation called for from the petitioner before asking her to remove the construction allegedly made by her on the drain. In that view of the matter, the notice issued to the petitioner dated 18.10.2008 is directed to be treated as show cause notice. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit an explanation to the notice dated 18.10.2008 within a period of two weeks from today and thereupon the respondent shall consider the explanation and take appropriate further action. Till the disposal of the objections ﬁled by the petitioner, there shall be status quo existing as on today with regard to the construction made by her. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J November 13, 2008 DSK