THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.25471 of 2011 Dated 12th September, 2011 Between: Akbar Ali Virani …Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, rep.by its Commissioner and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Viplava Simha Reddy Counsel for respondents: Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notices, bearing No.--/ACP/C4/52/GHMC/2011, dated 14.03.2011, and No.13/ACP/C4/S2/GHMC/2011, dated 28.04.2011, issued by respondent No.2, under Section 452(1) r/w Section 461(1) and Section 636 respectively, of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is the owner of shops bearing Nos.1 and 2 in stilt portion of the premises bearing No.16-11-477/6/1/A of Sai Towers, Moosaram Bagh, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, the building comprising cellar (stilt), ground + four upper floors was constructed without major deviations, that due to certain minor deviations in the building, an application was submitted for regularisation of those deviations under G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 02.05.1996, and that the deviations were accordingly regularised. It is the further case of the petitioner that the cellar portion with measurements 17.3’ x 39.3’, in which shop Nos.1 and 2 are being run, were earmarked for office in the plan attached to the regularisation proceedings. Respondent No.2 has issued notice, dated 14.03.2011, under Section 452(1) r/w Section 461(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply in writing within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, further action will be taken for removal or pulling down the deviated portion/unauthorised construction in cellar/earmarked stilt floor for parking purpose. The petitioner submitted his reply, dated 18.03.2011. By notice, dated 28.04.2011, issued under Section 636 of the Act, respondent No.2 has concluded that the petitioner is running commercial business in the premises bearing No.16-11-477/6/1/A at Moosaram Bagh, Hyderabad and has no parking facility/insufficient parking/violation of designated parking and causing lot of inconvenience. A careful perusal of the two notices issued by respondent No.2 as referred to above would reveal that they are as vague as vagueness could be. In the notice issued under Section 452(1) r/w Section 461(1) of the Act, respondent No.2 has not taken the trouble of filling up the gaps in the second paragraph relating to the nature of the activity being carried on by the petitioner in the premises in question. In paragraph-3, the three alternative violations, namely, deviated portion/unauthorised construction in cellar/earmarked stilt floor for parking, are allowed to remain as they are without pinpointing the actual violation. Similar is the case with regard to the notice issued under Section 636 of the Act, wherein even though it is alleged that the petitioner is carrying on “commercial business”, the three alternative violations, namely, no parking facility/insufficient parking/violation of designated parking, referred to in the notice, are allowed to remain without striking off the non-applicable part of the violation. This approach of the respondents betrays complete non-application of mind on their part while issuing notices. These notices create an impression in the mind of the Court that the respondents are going through the ritual of giving some notice, obviously to satisfy this Court or the Hon’ble Lokayukta, resulting in a spate of needless litigation. At the hearing, Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, has stated that he will advise the respondents not to issue such vague notices in future, when this Court proposed to impose heavy costs on the respondents. Giving credence to the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is refraining from imposing such costs for the present. It is made clear that if such notices as in the present case are issued by the respondents in future, this Court will take a serious view of the conduct of the officials, who issue such notices. As the impugned notices cannot be sustained for the vagueness and lack of specific allegations, apart from the failure of the respondents to consider the explanation of the petitioner in response to the notice issued under Section 452(1) r/w Section 461(1) of the Act, the impugned notices are quashed. The respondents are directed to issue fresh notice under Section 452(1) r/w Section 461(1) of the Act with specific allegations of deviations and act in accordance with law after considering the explanation, if any, that may be submitted by the petitioner. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31361 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th September, 2011 VGB