THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9984 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims that she has been assigned a plot of Ac.0.02 cents in Survey No.30/2B of Kadapa Revenue Village way back on 20.05.1985 and that she constructed a temporary building thereon. The respondent issued a notice, dated 17.03.2008, under Sections 405 and 447 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 alleging that the petitioner has encroached into 447 square feet over a public street. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to demolish the structures straightaway. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Through the impugned notice, the respondent required the petitioner to remove the structure. The explanation of the petitioner was not at all called for. It is, no doubt, true that the respondent is conferred with the power to remove the encroachments by giving a reasonable time. However, the affected person must be given an opportunity to explain as to whether the allegation against him or her is true at all. Therefore, the impugned notice can be treated as the one requiring the petitioner to explain. The petitioner can submit her explanation and the respondent can pass appropriate orders taking the same into account. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to submit explanation to the allegation made against her, within a period of two (2) weeks from today. The respondent shall take the same into account and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, the structure in question shall not be demolished. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:16.11.2009 kdl