IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1156 of 2003 Between: Zaki Ahmed, S/o. Shaik Mahboob, 34-36, 1st Floor, Sree Rama Towers, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commisisoner, having its office at Basheerbagh Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 pass appropriate order or orders more particularly one in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing letter No.080/Devn/UC/ACP/HO/CSC/TP FIVE 2001/36390 dt. 16.11.2002/4.12.2002 issued by the Respondent Corporation thereby declaring that the letter is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.541 dt. 17.11.2000 and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.RAJEEVAN Counsel for the Respondent : SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1156 of 2003 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner who is a Structural Engineer seeks invalidation of the order dated 16.11.2002/4.12.2002 of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, he has been working as Structural Engineer for the last 16 years and has offered structural designs for numerous buildings, commercial complexes and apartments in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. It appears, the petitioner has given structural design for construction of a building in respect of premises bearing No. 7-1-397/6 situated at Sajeeeva Reddy Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. While so, the respondent-Corporation issued the impugned proceedings dated 16- 11-2002/4.12.2002 alleging that the construction commenced in the said premises is contrary to the plan and undertaking given by the petitioner. The respondent further directed the petitioner to stop construction work forthwith and to take further steps to bring the constructions in conformity with the sanctioned plan. Petitioner states that as a Structural Engineer, he is responsible for the structural stability of the building and if any constructions are made by the owners contrary to the sanctioned plan, that cannot be a ground for taking any steps to debar him from practicing as a Structural Engineer. At the stage of admission, interim order was granted by this Court on 30.1.2003 and the same is being extended from time to time. Though the writ petition is of the year 2003, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondent denying the allegations of the petitioner. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is quite clear that the the respondent issued the impugned proceedings on the ground that the construction commenced by the owner is contrary to the sanctioned plan. In such an event, the respondent-Corporation can initiate action against the erring owners as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955 for removal of such unauthorized structures. But the same cannot be a ground for debarring the petitioner from practicing as a Structural Engineer. Therefore, in the absence of any counter affidavit being filed by the respondent-Corporation contraverting the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the writ petition, the impugned proceedings dated 16.11.2002 issued vide proceedings bearing No. 080/Devn/UC/ACP/ HO/CSC/ TP5/2001/3690 of the respondent are liable to be quashed and they are hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J DATE: 31.7.2009 pnb