THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.20264 of 2011 Dated 01st August, 2011 Between: Mohammed Mateen Ul Ali and others …Petitioners And Commissioner, Municipality, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Mohd.Adnan Counsel for respondent: Mrs.Shanthi Neelam The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice, dated 04.07.2011, of the respondent. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the properties mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition situated at Habeebnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. They have pleaded that adjacent to their house, they have constructed a summer house and that the respondent has issued the impugned notice, whereby while calling upon the petitioners to forthwith stop the construction and remove the same, petitioner No.1 was called upon to show-cause why within three days the provisional order referred to above shall not be confirmed. The petitioners have placed reliance on the provisions of Section 229 of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) in support of their plea that for construction of a summer house beyond the distance of three meters from the nearest adjacent building, no permission is required. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that petitioner No.1 is alleged to have constructed a function hall without prior permission. At the hearing, Smt.Shanthi Neelam, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality representing the respondents, submitted that since the petitioners have constructed a function hall without prior permission, the provisional order and the show-cause notice have been issued and if the petitioners have already submitted their explanation, the same will be considered and final order will be passed. In my opinion, the question whether the petitioners have constructed a summer house or a function hall without prior permission needs to be adjudicated by the respondent, who is vested with such power under Section 228 of the Act. As the respondent has initiated proceedings in exercise of the said power, the writ petition is premature. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that an explanation has already been filed in response to the show-cause, it is appropriate that the respondent considers the same and takes a final decision under the provisions of Section 228(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that till passing of a final order and communication of the same, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps for demolition of the structure in question. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24566 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st August, 2011 VGB