THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30708 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a welfare association of the owners or occupants of the plots of Vijaya Sai Residency at Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Respondent No.4 is said to have constructed the Complex on the basis of permission accorded to it in the year 2002 by the erstwhile Kukatpally Municipality. The petitioner states that though the permission was for construction of stilt + five upper floors, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have undertaken construction of pent house on the roof of the building in the recent past. It is stated that a complaint was submitted to the authorities of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). It complains that no action has been taken thereon. While issuing notice before admission 22.12.2010, this Court called for a report from the Corporation. Respondent No.3 herein submitted a report stating that the permission accorded to respondent No.4 was only for construction of stilt + five upper floors, but on noticing that the construction of pent house was undertaken, notice under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued requiring respondent Nos.4 and 5 to explain within ten days as to why action be not taken. It is also stated that soon after the expiry of period of notice, steps under Section 636 of the Act would be initiated. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. The report submitted by respondent No.3 discloses that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have brought about a construction on the roof of the building. That is said to be in violation of the sanctioned plan. Action has already been initiated. In case it emerges that the explanation offered by respondent Nos.4 and 5 is not satisfactory, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have to take steps for demolition of the unauthorized structure. Much would depend upon the nature of remedies which respondent Nos.4 and 5 would avail. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.3 to take action in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 25.01.2011. kdl