IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3748 of 2009 Between: Padagala Sitaram, S/o.,Appalaswamy, R/o. H.No. 39-4-30.1, Padagalavari Street, Statdum Road, c ..... PETITIONER AND The Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation Rep by its Commissioner, Rajahmundry, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT 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 of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the proposed action of the respondent in issuing Notice in UC No. 1/09/VI dated 2-2-2009 in respect of petitioner building D.No. 39-4-30/1 situated at Padagalavari Street, Stadium Road, Rajahmundry as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner of a house bearing H.No.39-4-30/1 consisting of ground floor and upstairs, situated at Padagalavari Street, Stadium Road, Rajahmundry, having acquired the same under a registered will dated 16.9.1976 executed by his father in his favour and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the respondent-Corporation issued a Notice dated 2.2.2009 stating that he made constructions in violation of the Rules as per G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 15.4.2008, and the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 19.2.2009 to the notice, and his grievance is that in spite of his explanation submitted by him, the respondent, without considering his explanation, is trying to demolish the structures made by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not constructing any new structures but only renovating the existing house by repairing its old walls, and the respondent, without passing any orders on the objections/explanation filed by the petitioner, is taking steps to demolish the structures, which is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the material placed on record. Having regard to the fact that the explanation/objection, which is said to have been filed by the petitioner on 19.2.2009, is pending consideration before the respondent, and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondent-Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry is directed to the consider the explanation/objection said to have been filed by the petitioner on 19.2.2009 and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, if not already disposed of. Till such time, both the parties shall maintain Status Quo obtaining as on today.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 26th February, 2009 Note: Furnish copy in two days B/o bcj