IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4695 of 2002 Between: Shankar Lal, S/o. Late Santhlal, R/o. H.No. 15-5-61, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, throurgh its Commissioner cum Special Officer, Tank Bund Road, 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 to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs order or direction declaring the impugned notice issued by respondnet vide No.1674/ATP.C2/MCH/ dt. 27-10-1998 as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent not to take any action in pursuance to the impugned notice and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4695 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is a tenant of the premises bearing No.15-5-61, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad. The Municipal Corporation - the respondent issued a notice dated 27.10.1998 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the building be not pulled down since it was alleged to be in a precarious condition. The petitioner challenged the notice stating inter alia that it was issued at the instance of the landlord. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. It is only in exceptional cases this court would interfere with the show cause notice. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent does not have the jurisdiction to issue notice. However, it is only when an order under Section 456 of the H.M.C. Act is passed, after considering explanation of the petitioner herein, that any detriment can be said to have caused to the petitioner. The reply submitted by the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice has to be examined and the premises is to be inspected personally by the authority. Therefore, the writ petition is premature and is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 11.12.2008 Stp REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KRD}