HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.31020 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled to declare the proceedings dated 18-11-2011 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioners have constructed a building situated at Door No.27-16-173, Beseant Road, Vijayawada, admeasuring 210 sq. yards in the year 1984 after obtaining building permission for construction of the same. The building including the basement is utilized for shops as the building plan approved is for commercial purpose. The sanctioned plan does not say that the basement is meant for parking, except a portion at the corner of the building. While so, the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice dated 18-11-2011 under Sections 452, 461 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’) directing the petitioners to remove the shops which are in cellar portion as it is contrary to the Act and the relevant G.Os issued by the Government. It is further averred in the aﬃdavit that the construction of basement is valid and approved and as such that portion cannot be treated as unauthorized construction as the building was constructed in the year 1984 after obtaining necessary permission and at that time, there is no such law or rules which as ear-marked the basement or the ground ﬂoor for parking purpose and as such the 1st respondent cannot unilaterally direct the petitioners to convert the basement into parking area by straight away issuing notice under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the notice dated 18-11-2011, was issued under Sections 452, 461 and 636 of the Act, whereby, the 1st respondent came to the pre-conclusion and that in pursuance of this notice, the explanation was submitted by the petitioners, for which no orders have been passed. Hence, prays to set aside the same. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the 1st respondent contended that the impugned notice dated 18- 11-2011 has to be treated as show cause notice and after receipt of explanation, appropriate decision will be taken by the 1st respondent in accordance with law. 6. As seen from the impugned notice, it is clear that it was issued under Sections 452, 461 and 636 of the Act. After calling for the explanation under Section 452 of the Act, appropriate decision has to be taken with regard to the unauthorized construction. Therefore, the mentioning of Section 636 of the Act is nothing but pre-concluding the matter. After passing of an order under Section 452 of the Act, an order under Section 636 of the Act has to be issued to the persons who made constructions contrary to the sanction plan or made any unauthorized constructions. Therefore, the impugned order in so far it relates to mentioning the provision under Section 636 of the Act is set aside. The impugned notice dated 18-11-2011 can be treated as show cause notice issued under Section 452 of the Act only. The petitioners are directed to submit explanation to this notice and thereafter, appropriate decision has to be taken by the 1st respondent in accordance with law. 7. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in pursuance of the explanation that may be given by the petitioners to the notice dated 18-11-2011, within a period of one week from today and pass appropriate orders thereon and shall communicate the same to the petitioners. Till then, the building of the petitioners shall not be demolished. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 24th November 2011 kvr