HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 25512 OF 2009 DATED 4th OCTOBER, 2010. BETWEEN C.Ramesh Yadav and ors ….Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. By its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and ors …… Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 25512 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners state that the fourth respondent is the owner of the land in an extent of 130 square yards in the premises Door bearing No. 3-5-718/2, situated at Vittalwadi, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. He constructed three-storied building therein for residential purpose. It is the case of the petitioners that the fourth respondent instead of using the said building for residential purpose, is running a hostel, mess etc. The use of the building by the fourth respondent for purpose other than residential, according to the petitioner, not only contravened the building regulations, but is also causing much inconvenience to the locality people, more particularly ladies, who are being subjected to untold harassment by hostellers, who make naughty comments. The petitioners state that under Section 451 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the GHMC Act’) the Commissioner has power to make inspection of the premises without any prior notice, and initiate necessary action for removal of unauthorized constructions as contemplated under Sections 452 and 636 of the GHMC Act. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the petitioners and others have submitted several complaints about the activities being carried on by the fourth respondent, respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any action against respondent No. 4 and the alleged constructions made by him. Hence this Writ Petition. When the matter was listed for hearing on 28.07.2010, the third respondent-Assistant City Planner, GHMC, ﬁled counter. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submitted that the Corporation has already initiated action against the illegal construction made by the fourth respondent and issued notice as required under law. He sought some time to get instructions as to the action taken in furtherance of the notice. On the same day, the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent sought time to file counter. On 11.08.2010, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that after issuance of the notice to the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent sought two weeks time to vacate the hostel which is being continued in the residential building. It was also stated that notice as required under Section 441 of the GHMC Act was issued to the fourth respondent to bring the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan and for removal of the illegal constructions made by him. On that day, none appeared for the fourth respondent. Thereafter the matter underwent two more adjournments. Even on 28.09.2010, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation did not report instructions as to the action taken against the fourth respondent. In the circumstances, third respondent- Assistant City Planner of the Corporation was directed to appear before this Court in person on 4.10.2010, with relevant records. To day when the matter is taken up, the third respondent is present in person before this Court. However, even today also, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation sought one week time to take necessary action against the fourth respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that there is no need to take any permission from the respondent-Corporation to run the hostel and mess and that the only licences that are required to be taken are with regard to sanitation and health, which are in process and the authorities of the respondent-Corporation shall issue them shortly. In the counter ﬁled on behalf of the third respondent, it is stated that the fourth respondent has completed Ground+3 upper ﬂoors, deviating the sanctioned plan and put the premises for use for running hostel in the upper ﬂoors and constructed shop in the ground ﬂoor, though permission was granted for residential purpose. It is stated that the fourth respondent has made construction contrary to the sanctioned plan and converted the use of the building from residential to commercial and running the hostel in the upper ﬂoors commercially, without obtaining speciﬁc permission as contemplated under Section 441 of the GHMC Act. It is further stated that notice under Section 441 of the GHMC Act was issued to the fourth respondent on 2.7.2010 to bring the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan within thirty days. Though the fourth respondent constructed the building in question contrary to the sanctioned plan and converted the use of the building from residential to commercial and thereby running the hostel in the upper ﬂoors commercially, without obtaining speciﬁc permission as contemplated under Section 441 of the GHMC Act, it is unfortunate to note that in spite of complaints being made against such violations, and making submission that they are taking actions, no action has been taken by the oﬃcial respondents against the fourth respondent so far. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to take necessary action on the complaints made by the petitioners against the fourth respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 4T H OCTOBER, 2010. Msnr