THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.4575 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioners seeking directions to Respondents 1 to 5 to undertake demolition of the illegal constructions (Pent House) constructed by the 6th respondent on the fifth floor of Shreya Mansion, situated in premises bearing Municipal No.6-3-1099/1/4 & 5, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh, while respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the various Officers of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Without going any further into the details of the matter, it would be apt to notice that the 6th respondent in his counter affidavit has asserted that he had made certain constructions on the fifth floor of the building in question and that he has filed an application under the ‘Buildings Regularization Scheme’ announced by the 1st respondent, duly praying for regularization of such structures raised by him and that the said application is still pending consideration by the Municipal Corporation and hence, the structures raised by him on the fifth floor of Shreya Mansion, situated in premises bearing Municipal No. 6-3-1099/1/4 & 5, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, cannot be now mandated to be demolished. This apart, it was further asserted on behalf of the 6th respondent that a Division Bench of this Court has already upheld the validity of the ‘Buildings Regularization Scheme’ and it laid down certain conditions to be adopted and followed by the agency concerned before the Orders are passed regularizing such constructions. The Division Bench of this Court had directed the local Municipal Corporation / Municipality as the case may be, not to demolish such structures till the application for regularization is dealt with and decided. The 6th respondent, therefore, prays that the relief prayed for in this writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioners in view of these subsequent developments. It would also be appropriate at this stage to note that Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the Municipal Corporation shall not pass any Orders on the application under “Buildings Regularization Scheme’ moved by the 6th respondent before it, without providing an opportunity for the writ petitioners to raise their objections with regard to the regularization of such structures. The learned counsel would further submit that the writ petitioners have a stake with regard to the structures raised by the 6th respondent illegally and hence, they have a right to be heard before any such Order is passed by the Municipal Corporation in favour of the 6th respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Smt. Kalpana Ekbote also submits that whenever and wherever objections are received with regard to any application submitted under “Buildings Regularization Scheme”, such objectors are invariably provided an opportunity of hearing and such objections were taken note of and taken into consideration before appropriate decision is taken. It is, therefore, appropriate to direct the writ petitioners to file their objections immediately at any rate within 15 days from today and pursue the same with the Corporation as to why the structures raised by the 6th respondent on the premises in question shall not be regularize by it. Upon receipt of such objections, the Corporation will bestow their thought to such objections and deal with the same appropriately and pass a reasoned Order before sanctioning any such regularization in favour of the 6th respondent. It is needless to observe that the 6th respondent is also entitled to place his views in the matter before the Corporation for the purposes of better appreciation about the tenability or otherwise of the objections raised by the petitioners. For this purpose the writ petitioners will also serve a copy of the objections, which they are required to lodge with the Municipal Corporation, upon the 6th respondent through registered post with acknowledgment due, at his latest address mentioned by him. It is for the 6th respondent to take steps for receipt of such objections sent through registered post. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. The Municipal Corporation will deal with the application submitted by the 6th respondent as well as the objections that are likely to be raised by the writ petitioners strictly in accordance with their merits, uninfluenced in any manner with the observations, if any, made in this writ petition or in the contempt case. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 4th November 2009