IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1177 of 2009 Between: Kumbam Venkat Ranga Reddy S/o. Sri K. Vittal Reddy R/o. H.No. 2-2-25/P/7/1, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad Rep. by his Regd. GPA Holder Sri Captain K. Kishan ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner and Special Officer Tank Bund Road,. Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Having its Office at Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not receiving the application proposed plan and permit fee from the petitioner and insisting for getting No Objection Certificate from the 2nd respondent for issuance of building permission in respect of the property house bearing M.C.No.8-2-310/1/6, admeasuring 500 sq. yards equivalent to 418.05 sq. meters situated at Road NO. 14 Banjarahills, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and against the bye- laws of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Act 1955 and consequently direct the 1st respondent immediately to receive the application for construction of building permission along with copies of proposed plan and permit fee from the petitioner without insisting for No Objection Certification from the 2nd respondent in respect of the property house bearing M.C.No. 8-2-310/1/6, admeasuring 500 sq. yards equivalent to 418.05 sq. meters situated at Road NO. 14 Banjarahills, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in refusing to receive the application for sanction of building permission plan. The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing M.C.No.8-2- 310/1/6, admeasuring 500 sq. yards situated at Road No.14, Banjarahills, Hyderabad having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 07.12.1989. He submitted an application for re-construction of the building by demolishing the existing structures therein. The first respondent refused to entertain the application and insisted for production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the second respondent–District Collector, Hyderabad. The said action is assailed in this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue received notice on behalf of the second respondent. It is well settled that the first respondent cannot insist for production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the second respondent for entertaining a building permission application vide the decision of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd v. Collector, Hyderabad District[1]. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to entertain the building permission application of the petitioner without insisting the ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the second respondent. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date: 29.01.2009 va [1] 2001 (3) ALD 600