THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.126 of 2010 DATED: 09.09.2010 Between: Ch. V.S.S. Seshadri Sastry. .. Petitioner. And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. .. Respondent. ORDER: Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Flat No.G1 located in Ground Floor of an apartment situated on Plot No.70 in Sy.Nos.323, 324, 332 to 336, 339 and 428 of Bhoodevi Nagar, Venkatapuram, Alwal Municipality, presently in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Revenue Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of the sale deed dated 23.06.2001 bearing document No.1660 /2001. He states that as the builder has constructed the apartment in deviation of the sanctioned plan, he submitted an application dated 26.04.2008, for regularization of the deviations concerning his flat, under Building Penalization Scheme. He further states that he erected an iron grill to the balcony of his flat for the purpose of safety and he therefore further requested the Corporation to consider the same, while considering his BPS application. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending consideration of his BPS application, the respondent Corporation is taking steps to demolish his flat, without following due process of law. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. While issuing notice before admission on 06.01.2010, this Court granted interim stay of demolition of the premises in question, pending further orders. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that the owners of other flats in the subject apartment made a complaint to the respondent Corporation, complaining that the petitioner, by encroaching into the common area of the building, erected an iron grill and requested to take necessary action for removal of the same. Thereupon, the respondent Corporation issued notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) to the petitioner as regards the unauthorized erection of grill and ultimately issued final notice under Section 636 of HMC Act, dated 05.01.2010, directing the petitioner to remove the illegally erected grill. It is further categorically stated that the unauthorized erection of grill by the petitioner in the common area of the building is not covered under the BPS application submitted by the petitioner and that the Building Penalization Scheme is not applicable to the unauthorized constructions raised in the common areas in the apartments. So far as the BPS application submitted by the petitioner, is concerned, it is stated that the same is not yet considered, in view of non-production of structural stability certificate and non- payment of penalisation charges by the petitioner. When the matter came up for consideration on 18.08.2010, it was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice said to have been issued by the respondent Corporation, and the copy of the complaint said to have been made by the other flat owners are not served to the petitioner. On such representation, this Court directed the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation to serve copies of the show cause notice and the complaint to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the court hall itself, so as to enable the petitioner to give explanation to the said show cause notice, and the matter was adjourned. Today, learned counsel on either side submitted that, in pursuance of service of notice under Section 452 of the Act, the petitioner submitted his explanation thereto on 02.09.2010, a copy of which is placed before this Court, and so far the respondent Corporation has not passed any orders in the matter. In view of the above, since the respondent Corporation has issued notice under Section 452 of the Act and the petitioner submitted his explanation thereto, which is pending consideration, the final notice dated 05.01.2010, under Section 636 of the Act, which was issued even before the petitioner submitted his explanation to the notice under Section 452 of the Act, is set aside and the respondent Corporation is directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter, taking into consideration the explanation dated 02.09.2010 submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the notice issued under Section 452 of HMC Act. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 09.09.2010 v v/IBL