IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13910 of 2008 Between: R. Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late Mohan Rao, R/o. D.No. 38-31-131, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. .....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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned vague and ulterior show cause notice issued by the respondent vide. No. BA No. 448/06/06/ACP-I, dt.20-5-2008 and further action of the respondent in proceedings to pass adverse orders and stringent steps of demolition without considering petitioner’s detailed reply for ulterior reason, by succumbing to the political pressures, as illegal, unwarranted and violative of Art. 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned show cause notice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13910 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Mr R.Venkata Ramana, questioning the show-cause notice, dated 20.05.2008, issued by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, the respondent herein, whereunder the petitioner has been called upon to explain as to why the building permission granted to him shall not be revoked under the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short ‘the H.M.C. Act’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show-cause notice came to be issued by the respondent at the instance of the realtors, who are close to local politicians in power. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner submitted explanation and his explanation is to be considered and final orders are required to be passed. As seen from the material papers filed along with the writ petition, a show-cause notice, as provided under Section 450 of H.M.C. Act read with Section 440 of H.M.C. Act, came to be issued to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation running into three pages. The respondent Corporation has to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders. The learned Standing Counsel reports that till the final orders are passed pursuant to the show-cause notice, the respondent Corporation is not going to take any steps for demolition. In the light of the above circumstances and since the explanation of the petitioner is still pending consideration of the respondent Corporation, the respondent is directed not to demolish the structures put up by the petitioner pending consideration of his explanation. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 1st July,2008. Note:- Issue operation portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. BO IBL