THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.23062 of 2011 Dated 16th August, 2011 Between: Md.Anwar Ali …Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, Nampally, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mohd.Rahail Ahmed Counsel for respondents: Sri C.Damodar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice bearing No.F3/B2/ACP/TPS/C8/CS/GHMC/2011/UC, dated 05.08.2011, of respondent No.1, stated to be served on the petitioner on 10.08.2011. The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No.5-5- 475/B2/F3, of Bhagyanagar Colony, Nampally, Hyderabad. The respondents have issued notice under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, whereby they have called upon the petitioner to show sufficient cause either by a statement in writing or by appearing before the Assistant City Planner on 12.08.2011 or by filing a reply within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the notice as to why action for removal of the deviated portion/unauthorised construction shall not be taken. The petitioner was also called upon to stop unauthorised construction. This notice is impugned in this writ petition. In my opinion, no cause has arisen for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, because the impugned proceedings are only in the nature of a notice, whereby while directing the petitioner to stop further work, he has been called upon to submit his explanation and appear before respondent No.2 on 12.08.2011. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents inherently lack jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. Instead of appearing before respondent No.2 and filing objections to the notice, the petitioner has rushed to this Court, rather needlessly. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 in pursuance of the impugned notice and file his objections. If such objections are filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28209 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th August, 2011 VGB