THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31993 of 2010 Date: 21.12.2010 Between : P.V. Tirumala Prasad … Petitioner and The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31993 of 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent in proceedings Roc.No. /2010/ACP-II, dated 07.12.2010, directing the petitioner to remove the construction made in violation of the permission and in deviation of the sanctioned plan. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 269 square yards bearing No.39-18-93, in Sy.Nos.29, 30 part of Madhavadhara Division, Visakhapatnam. After obtaining permission, the petitioner constructed a building in the said land with Ground, First and Second Floors. While constructing the same, it appears that the petitioner had constructed a pent house and also committed certain deviations, which are not permitted as per the sanctioned plan. When the respondent is taking steps to demolish the said unauthorized constructions, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.26116 of 2009 and this Court, by order dated 11.12.2009, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents therein not to take any steps vis-a-viz the building without following due procedure prescribed under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”). Pursuant to the said orders passed by this Court, the respondent issued a notice under Section 636 of the Act in Roc.No.5803/2010/ACP-II, dated 30.8.2010 (which appears to be a mistake) directing the petitioner to appear before the Assistant City Planner, Zone-IV, on 08.08.2010 along with relevant material and title deeds. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 06.09.2010. In the said explanation, while admitting construction of the pent house unauthorisedly, which was subsequently demolished, the petitioner categorically stated that there are no other deviations and except the pent house, the remaining construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan. However, without considering the said explanation, the respondent passed the impugned order, dated 07.12.2010, pointing out that the petitioner has deviated the sanctioned plan in respect of the setbacks, coverage and FSI etc. Questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that after removal of the pent house, the remaining construction undertaken by the petitioner is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and there are no other deviations. The learned counsel also submits that the irregularities pointed out in the impugned order were not put to the petitioner in the show cause notice, dated 30.08.2010, therefore, the petitioner could not effectively defend his case during the course of hearing. 5. It appears to be true that prior to issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner was not properly informed about the alleged deviations committed by him. Moreover, a perusal of the notice, dated 30.08.2010, discloses that no inspection was made by the respondent to ascertain the alleged deviations. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would fairly submit that in view of the above deficiencies, the impugned order, dated 07.12.2010, itself be considered as a show cause notice and the petitioner be permitted to submit his explanation to it. 7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is directed that the order passed by the respondent in proceedings Roc.No.5803/2010/ACP-II, dated 07.12.2010, shall be construed as a show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit his explanation to the said show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, the respondent is at liberty to consider the same, including inspection of the building, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till final orders are passed, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by both the parties. 8. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 21.12.2010 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31993 of 2010 21.12.2010 (Msr)