IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6504 of 2009 Between: M/s.Sardarmal Dhanraj, rep. by its partner Satyanarayana Devda, S./o.Bannalal Devda, R/o.Premises No.15-7-400, Begum bazar Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, having its office at Tank Bund, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad .....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 more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Notice U/s.459 of HMC Act dated 24.2.2009 Sl.No.169/ACP/CS/GHMC/09 issued by the respondent in respect of property bearing Municipal No.15-7-400 Begum Bazar, Hyderabad as being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and issue such other writ or order or directions as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.V.V.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner claims to be the tenant of Mulgi bearing No.15-7- 400, Hyderabad wherein he has been running business for more than four decades and the premises is in good condition. While so, the respondent-Commissioner issued Notice 24.02.2009 indicating that it is in dilapidated condition and likely to collapse at any moment, thereby endangering the lives of the inmates of the building and the public passing through the road and directed the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against it. Then, the petitioner submitted its explanation/ objections dated 28.02.2009 to the impugned notice, but its grievance is that on 20.03.2009, the subordinates of the respondents, without following the procedure contemplated under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), threatened to demolish the property in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the premises in question is in good condition, and more so, the petitioner already submitted his explanation/objections on 28.02.2009 and the same is under consideration before the respondent, but the respondent, without considering and passing final orders thereon, issued the impugned notice. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the explanation/objections filed by the petitioner to the impugned notice is under consideration before the respondent and unless and until final order is passed on the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 456 of the Act, the respondent will not take any action to demolish the premises in question. Since, the explanation said to have been filed by the petitioner on 28.02.2009 to the impugned notice, is under consideration before the respondent, and having regard to the stand taken by the respondent-Commissioner that they shall not resort to demolition of the premises till final order is passed on the explanation/objection filed by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondent-Commissioner is directed to consider the explanation/objections said to have been filed by the petitioner on 28.02.2009 and pass appropriate final orders thereon as contemplated under Section 456 of the Act. Till final orders under Section 459 of the Act are passed on the objections raised by the petitioner, the respondent shall not resort to any kind of demolition of the premises in question.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 30th March, 2009 Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow. B/o bcj