HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16164 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the first respondent herein, on 05- 03-2007 with a request to accord permission to construct upon plot No.15, carved out of Survey No.54/A of Madeenaguda Revenue Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Permission was accorded on 12-03-2007. However, the permission was cancelled through proceedings, dated 09-07-2007 on a complaint submitted by respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner contends that though reference was made to a show cause notice, dated 30-06- 2007, in the impugned order, it was not served upon him. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the permission was accorded to the petitioner by accepting his contention that he is the owner of the property. He stated that a representation was made by respondents 2 and 3 on 11-05-2007 disputing the title of the petitioner and after comparison of the sale deed submitted by the petitioner on the one hand, and respondents 2 and 3 on the other, the show cause notice was issued. According to them, the show cause notice was sent through registered post. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. The record discloses that notices sent to respondents 2 and 3 were returned un-served. The only ground urged by the petitioner is that he was not served with the show cause notice, dated 30-06-2007. The Corporation does have the power to cancel the permission, if it is found that it was obtained by creating a mis-representation or committing fraud. However, before cancellation of the permission, a show cause notice must be served. The allegation of the petitioner that he was not served with the show cause notice remains un- rebutted. The mere despatch of the notice by the first respondent does not constitute service. Further, the first respondent is under obligation to enclose a copy of the representation said to have been made by respondents 2 and 3. Even now, such an exercise can be undertaken. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is left open to the first respondent to send a copy of the notice, dated 30-06-2007, along with a copy of the representation, dated 11-05-2007 to the petitioner, giving him 15 days time to submit explanation and to take further action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY 24th February, 2011 VJL/KDL