IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15901 of 2009 Between: 1 Smt. B. Sri Vani W/o. Ashok Kumar R/o. H.No. 12-10-769, Namalagundu, Secunderabad. 2 Dr. Venkateshwar Rao S/o. D. Pandu Ranga Rao R/o. H.No. 12-10-769, Namalagundu, Secunderabad. 3 A. Manjula W/o. A. Narender Reddy R/o. H.No. 12-10-769, Namalagundu, Secunderabad. Mediplus / Optical Health Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by D. Madhukar Reddy, # 12-10-769, Namalagundu, Sec'bad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Lower Tank Bund, Near Liberty, Hyderabad. 2 The Zonal Commissioner North Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation S.D. Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the running of Mediplus / Medical Shop, the property obtained on lease by the petitioners bearing No.12-10-769, Namalagundu, Secunderabad. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.SAI KRISHNA MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners stating that they have entered into a development agreement for the property in question situated at Namalagundu, Secunderabad and after obtaining necessary permissions, the building was constructed as per the sanctioned plan. Thereafter the property was leased out. While so, the respondents served them with a notice under Section 441 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) stating that even though they obtained the permission for construction of the building for residential use, they converted the same into commercial use against the provisions of Section 441 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 against the sanctioned plan and, therefore, they were directed to bring the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan and close the commercial activity within 10 days, failing which action will be initiated as per the provisions of the Act. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the running of the Mediplus/Medical Shop in the property in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation. The fact that the building in question was being used for commercial purposes is not denied. However, the main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire road from Chilakalaguda to Warasiguda is a commercial street and the building in question is also situated on the same road. Even though the respondent authorities permitted all the buildings situated on the said road to be used for commercial purposes, discriminated the petitioners alone and issued the impugned notice. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that on the complaints received from the residents of the building, the impugned notice is issued. However, he submits that he is not having any particulars with regard to the other buildings situated on the said road. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the petitioners are directed to submit their explanation to the impugned show cause notice within one week from today and after considering such explanation, the respondent authorities shall pass appropriate orders and take necessary action against the petitioners. Till then, status quo obtaining as on date to be maintained. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.17.8.2009 NOTE: Furnish CC by tomorrow (B/o) msv