IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28365 of 2008 Between: Dr. P.V. Gopal Krishna S/o. Late P.V. Laxmana Rao R/o. Flat No. 201, The Legend Pulijala # 3-4-871/8, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to pass an order to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order more particularly a writ of Mandamus to set aside the notice dated 24-12- 2008 issued under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as illegal, contrary to law, null and void and without jurisdiction and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24-12-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KISHORE RAI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.28365 of 2008 ORDER: 1 According to the petitioner, on an application furnished by him seeking permission to construct a housing complex, the respondent authorities, having considered the same, had given permission on 08.04.2003, and as per the sanctioned plan, which is annexed to this Writ Petition, he was permitted to construct stilt for parking with one shop plus five floors. In the light of the said approval, according to the petitioner, he started construction and he also established a clinic. However, the respondent authorities on 24.12.2008 issued a notice stating that the said construction is not covered by the sanctioned plan and so directed the petitioner to remove the said construction within three days, failing which, action will be initiated. The said notice dated 24.12.2008 is questioned in this Writ Petition. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the second respondent Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. 3 In my considered opinion, the notice impugned in this Writ Petition cannot be sustained for the following reasons: 4 Firstly, before issuing such a notice, the respondent authorities ought to have issued a show cause notice as provided for under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, pointing out the deviations being made by the petitioner while constructing the building and called for an explanation thereto. But in the instant case the respondent authorities have not adopted that procedure. 5 Secondly, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the construction being made by the petitioner is contrary to the approved plan, inasmuch as in the permission granted to the petitioner on 08.04.2003 at column No.5 it is clearly stated that he is permitted to construct stilt for parking with one shop and five upper floors residential flats. 6 When once the respondent authorities have permitted the petitioner to construct a shop, now they cannot turn round and say that the said construction of shop/clinic is contrary to the approved plan. The standing counsel for the respondent Corporation states that on the complaint received from the flat owners of the very same building the said notice was issued. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide this issue for the reason that the petitioner can offer a detailed explanation to the notice dated 24.12.2008 issued by the respondent Corporation. 7 In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to treat the notice dated 24.12.2008 as a show cause notice issued under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and offer his explanation to it within a period of two weeks from today and the respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks thereafter. Till such time, no coercive steps, such as, demolition shall be undertaken by the respondents. --------------------- 26.12.2008 SRI T.G.K, J. kvsn