THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13444 of 2007 Date: 01.02.2011 Between : Smt. Shobha Jaiswal .… Petitioner and The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad and another. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13444 of 2007 ORDER : Heard Sri P. Thirumala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and with the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of. 2. The notice No.458/2/4/TPS/C6/MCH/2007, dated 25.6.2007, issued by the 2nd respondent-Assistant City Planner, Circle-VI, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner, claiming to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal No.4-2-458, situated at Badi Chowdi, Hyderabad, desires to construct a multi-storied building on the site after demolition of the old building. While taking steps to do so, she received the impugned notice purportedly issued under Section 459 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”) seeking her objections within 24-00 hours as to why the building should not be pulled down. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the said notice is incompetent, as the same has been issued without verifying the fact as to the condition of the building before invoking the powers under Section 456 of the Act. 5. Indisputably, the impugned notice has been issued by the Assistant City Planner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation under Section 459 of the Act. Under Section 459 of the Act, it is the Commissioner, who is competent to issue notice under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 456, sub-section (1) of Section 457 and sub-section (1) of Section 458 of the Act. Section 456 deals with the removal of structures, trees etc., which are in ruins or likely to fall; Section 457 deals with the precautions in case of dangerous trees; and Section 458 deals with the precautions in case of dangerous tanks, wells, holes etc. 6. By virtue of the above provisions of the Act, it is only the Commissioner, who is competent to invoke the said provisions, but not the Assistant City Planner. In view of the same, it must be held that the impugned notice is incompetent and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 25.6.2007 is set aside. It is, however, open to the respondents to issue notice properly and take appropriate action in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 01.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13444 of 2007 01.02.2011 (Msr)