IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5503 of 2009 Between: Edupuganti Ratnakar Babu S/o. Late Satyanarayana, Hindu R/o. D.No. 15-1-188, Nowroji Road, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. 2 M/s. Jayaprada Apartments Owner's Welfare Association, Rep. by its Secretary, D.No. 15-1-37, Opp. Grand Bay Hotel, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the 1st respondent Corporation to demolish alter or pull down petitioner building or part of building, pursuant to the notice bearing No UC No. 9/2008/ACP-III dt. 3-6- 2008 without following due procedure prescribed under HMC Act 1955 and the rules framed there under and without considering petitioners application for regularization and the explanation given to the impugned notice as illegal, arbitrary malafide and unlawful and command the 1st respondent Corporation to desist from demolishing altering or pulling down, otherwise then by due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner:M/SC.KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 597 Sq. yards of land in T.S.No.117 and 118 Part of Maharanipeta Ward, within the limits of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, and after obtaining permission from municipal authorities, he constructed a building therein consisting of three floors. While so, in the year 2007, the petitioner constructed 4th floor upon the existing building and a lift, but without obtaining permission. After construction, he made an application dated 31.5.2008 requesting the authorities to regularize his constructions under Building Penalization Scheme, but the 1st respondent, at the instance of the 2nd respondent, without considering his application, issued impugned notice under Sections 452 and 461 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) read with Section 7 of the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act, 1979 calling upon him to show cause as to why the unauthorized construction shall not be removed. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 6.6.2008, but his grievance is that the 1st respondent, without considering his explanation and without passing any orders thereon, is trying to demolish his 4th floor. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the 1st respondent. Inasmuch as in pursuance of the show cause notice, issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is said to have submitted his explanation/objections, and without considering and passing any orders thereon, the respondents are trying to demolish the 4th floor, both the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the explanation/objections dated 6.6.2008 said to have been submitted by the petitioner to the Impugned Notice dated 3.6.2008 and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. Unless and until, the explanation/objections dated 6.6.2008 are considered and disposed of, the respondents shall not resort to any demolition of the structures constructed by the petitioner on the existing building. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 18th March, 2009 bcj