THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.14082 of 2009 Dated 24th August, 2011 Between: Challa Surya Kameswara Rao …Petitioner And State of A.P., rep.by its Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ravi Cheemalapati Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri K.Chidambaram The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice, bearing Roc.No.1112/09-G1, dated 03.07.2009, of respondent No.2, whereby he has directed the petitioner to vacate premises bearing D.No.3-6-42, Yerramalli vari street, Narsapur, West Godavari District. The petitioner is in occupation of the above-mentioned premises as tenant of respondent Nos.3 and 4. When there were attempts to dispossess him, the petitioner filed O.S.No.216 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur for permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the persons claiming through them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the house. The petitioner has obtained interim injunction, which is stated to be in force as of now. Respondent No.6 appear to have purchased the house from respondent Nos.3 to 5. Subsequently, the petitioner received the impugned notice, dated 03.07.2009, from respondent No.2, wherein he has stated that the report dated 25.06.2009 submitted by the municipal engineer says that the terrace of the building in question is in dilapidated condition and not fit for being used for residential purpose and therefore the petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises within seven days by duly cooperating with his owner for removal of the building. The main ground on which the writ petition is filed is that the impugned notice is not preceded by a notice and an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his objections. According to the petitioner, the notice has been engineered by respondent No.6 and that the same is not bona fide. Under Section 231(1) of the A.P.Municipalties Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’), if any structure appears to be in a ruinous state and dangerous to the passersby or to the occupiers of neighbouring structures, the Commissioner may by notice require the owner or occupier to fence off, take down, secure or repair such structures so as to prevent any danger therefrom. Under sub-section (3) thereof, if the opinion of the Commissioner, the said structure is imminently dangerous to the inmates thereof, he shall order the immediate evacuation thereof and any person disobeying may be got removed with the help of any police officer. In the nature of the exigencies enumerated in Section 231 of the Act, a prior notice may generally be not feasible where the Commissioner is satisfied that the condition of the structure is shown imminently dangerous, as it may not brook the delay in issuing the notice. However, in the instant case, from the fact that the notice was issued as far back as 03.07.2009, and the building is stated to be still in existence without its collapse, it is evident that the immediate action for demolition of the building without prior notice is not warranted. As the petitioner asserts that the building is in a fit condition for living, it would be appropriate that he shall be permitted to submit his objections to the impugned notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.6 is also permitted to submit a representation on the condition of the building along with the material, if any, in support thereof. Respondent No.2 shall consider the objections and pass a speaking order in the event he rejects the objections of the petitioner. Till such an order is passed, the impugned notice shall not be enforced. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.18434 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.2906 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th August, 2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB