HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4603 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is an Educational Society. With a view to establish a Medical College, it wanted to construct huge buildings upon the land at Suraram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, which is now part of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Earlier, it was required to pay development charges. Some dispute arose as to the quantum thereof, and W.P. No.3459 of 2008 is pending before this Court. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent Corporation with a request to accord permission to construct the buildings. Through proceedings, dated 09-09-2009, the 1st respondent required the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.26,23,785/- representing 50% of the permit fee. The petitioner paid the same. However, through letter, dated 03-02-2011, the petitioner was required to pay the similar sum. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. 2. On behalf of the respondents, a counter – affidavit is filed. It is stated that under a mistaken impression that the interim order passed in W.P. No.3459 of 2008 would apply to the payment of permit fee also, proceedings were issued on 09-09-2009 requiring the petitioner to pay 50% of the permit fee and on realising that said interim order does not pertain the permit fee, the impugned proceedings were issued. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. There are two components of fee that are required to be paid by the petitioner. The first is about development fee, which is in the realm of Urban Development Authority. The second is payment of permit fee, which is to be levied by the Municipal Corporation. It is no doubt true that the petitioner paid substantial amount towards development charges and that a further demand was made on the basis of subsequent reasons, the petitioner filed W.P. No.3459 of 2008. This Court granted stay of such demand on condition of the petitioner pays 50% of the amount involved. 5. So far as the permit fee is concerned, the Corporation assessed the same to be Rs.52,47,570/-. However, under the impression that the interim order passed in W.P. No.3459 of 2008 applies to this also, the petitioner was required to pay only 50% of the permit fee. The fact, however, remains that the interim order does not operate vis-à-vis the permit fee. As a matter of fact, the permit fee has to be paid in its entirety before permit is released. The petitioner has some grievance about the quantum of permit fee fixed by the 1st respondent. Even now, it can make a representation in this regard. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that, a. The petitioner shall be entitled to make a representation before the Chief City Planner, the 2nd respondent, as to its grievance about the quantum of permit fee. b. The 2nd respondent shall take the representation into account and pass appropriate orders determining the permit fee, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the representation. c. If the petitioner pays the permit fee that may be determined by the 2nd respondent, the permit shall be released within two weeks thereafter, duly verifying the compliance with other provisions. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 21, 2011 KTL