HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10561 of 2005 Date : 08.12.2009 Between : D.S.Prasad Raju & others. …..Petitioners And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10561 of 2005 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notices issued by the respondents in exercise of powers under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, asking the petitioners to remove the constructions alleged to have been made by them unauthorizedly in the stilt floor/cellar area of the premises bearing No.7-1-621, Sri Sai Datta Apartments, Srinivasa Colony (East), Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2. All the notices are similar in nature. By mentioning the names of petitioners, stereo-type notices are issued alleging that they made unauthorized constructions in parking area of the aforementioned premises. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that no unauthorized constructions were made by them in the premises in question, and that they have also specifically alleged that the impugned notices for removal of constructions were issued without giving any opportunity or prior notice to them. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Circle-V of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In the counter affidavit it is stated that in view of the complaint dated 20.04.2005, filed by the Secretary of Sri Sai Datta Apartments, the impugned notices were issued as the petitioners have constructed partition walls in the stilt floor and thereby misused the parking space. But the allegation of petitioners that the impugned notices for removal of constructions are not preceded by any prior notice or opportunity, is not controverted by the 2nd respondent in his counter. 4. If any unauthorized constructions are to be removed, it is obligatory on the part of the 1st respondent-Corporation to issue notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Only after giving opportunity by issuing notice under Section 452 of the said Act, orders can be issued under Section 636 of the Act for removal of alleged unauthorized constructions. But, in the present writ petition, inspite of specific allegation of the petitioners that the impugned notices are not preceded by any notice, the same is not denied in the counter affidavit. Further, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has also not placed any material on record to show that the petitioners were given prior notices before issuing the impugned notices of demolition. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued to the petitioners for removal of constructions made in the premises bearing No.7-1-621 in Sri Sai Datta Apartments, Srinivasa Colony (East), Ameerpet, Hyderabad, are set aside. However, it is made clear that if any unauthorized constructions are there in the stilt/parking area of the premises in question, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking steps in accordance with law. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th December 2009 ajr