HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9732 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). At their request the Writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. Consequent upon a fire accident which occurred in the building bearing No.1-68/9, Plot No.76 in Sy.No.76 of Madhapur, the said building was declared unsafe by the impugned notice dated 13.4.2009. The owners and the occupiers were called upon to dispense with the usage of the building forthwith and were informed that, if they failed to do so, the GHMC would seal the premises. The owners were also required to show cause, within three days, why the building should not be pulled down or removed to prevent all causes of danger. The petitioner is a tenant in the first floor of the building. It is their case that the respondent - authorities do not have the power to seal the building and that the petitioner, as an occupier of a part of the said premises, is entitled to an opportunity of being heard and to satisfy the authorities that the building is structurally safe. On the first contention of lack of power, Section 456(3) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (GHMC Act) enables the Commissioner, if it appears to him that the danger from a structure which is ruinous or about to fall is imminent, to give a notice and to fence off, take down, secure or repair the said structure or take such steps or cause work to be executed as may be required to arrest the danger. The power under Section 456(3) is available to the Commissioner even before the notice period, under Section 456(1) of the Act, expires. The contention that the Commissioner does not have power to direct a person, in occupation of a portion of the building, to desist from using the premises does not merit acceptance. The mere fact that the Corporation has not referred to Section 456 (3), in the impugned notice dated 13.4.2009, does not denude them of their power to prevent persons from using the said premises for it is well settled that quoting of a wrong provision, or failure to quote the provision, would not disentitle the authorities from exercising their power, if such a power is available to them under the provisions of the Act. (Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority[1]) The fact, however, remains that prior to exercise of power, under Section 456(1) of the Act, the Commissioner is required, under Section 459, to give the owner and the occupiers an opportunity of stating objections, and to adduce evidence, if any, in support of their objections to the show cause notice. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to dispose of the Writ Petition permitting the respondent – Corporation to issue a notice under Section 456 (1) of the GHMC Act, to the owner and occupiers of the building, within one week from today. The owners/occupiers shall, within two weeks thereafter, submit their objections and, if they so choose, adduce evidence either oral or documentary. Within one week thereafter the Corporation shall pass orders under Section 456 of the Act and communicate it to the owners and occupiers of the building. It is made clear that till final orders are passed, within the time frame indicated hereinabove, the Corporation would be entitled to direct the owners/occupiers to desist from using the building in question if it is satisfied that the building is unsafe and should not be occupied. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 28-4-2010 Note: C.C. in one week B/o. asp [1] (1992)2 SCC 683