IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 25760 of 2006 Between: M/s.Alladin Charities and Zakat Waqf, represented by its Trustee Sri Habib Alladin, Office at # 72, Alladin Buildings, Sarojini devi Road, Secunderabad- 500 003. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst.City Planner, Circle 2, MCH, Sardar Mahal, Charminar, 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 of "mandamus" or any other writ or order declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notice dated 29-03- 2006 u/s.636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1995 and letter dated 02-12-2006 thereby interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in New Madina Complex bearing No.21-1-1036/63-67 situated at Rikabgunj, Hyderabad, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same directing the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner's property in any manner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.M.M.CHARI Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 29.03.2006 passed under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and letter, dated 02.12.2006 in respect of premises bearing No. 21-1-1036/63-67 situated at Rakabgunj, Hyderabad. Heard Sri V.M.M.Chari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by proceedings, dated 12.05.1997, the respondents regularized the constructions made in deviation of the building byelaws and, therefore, with reference to the same deviations, they cannot initiate action for demolition. Smt. Kalpana Ekbote drew my attention to the following averments contained in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle-II. “…….. As the petitioner has submitted reply dated 05.12.2006 along with regularization plans the concerned file is under circulation for necessary orders in view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in the suomotu Contempt case and after obtaining necessary instructions action will be initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law and if necessary by canceling the regularization granted in their favour, since the complaint now received is with regard to restoration of cellar meant for parking space. It is submitted that regularization can be granted in respect of unauthorized construction or deviation from the sanctioned plan which may not jeopardize public interest at large. In the instant case, the cellar meant for parking has been converted into commercial activities and the same cannot be allowed to continue.” The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that in the reply given on behalf of the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 452 of the Act, it is mentioned that an understanding was reached between the owner of neighbouring property for providing parking space and that there is no impediment created by the vehicles connected with the petitioner’s institution. It hardly needs any emphasis that the traffic situation in the twin cities is worsening day by day and illegal conversions of parking spaces is one of the main root causes for this problem. Evidently, to appease certain sections, the Government and the Corporation are involved in regularization of illegal constructions to the detriment of the general public. Though this issue is not germane for consideration by this Court in this writ petition, the Court cannot refrain from expressing its prima facie opinion when allied issues came up for consideration. But for the alleged regularization made in favour of the petitioner as in the case of thousands and thousands of similarly situated persons, the respondent Corporation would not have allowed creation of an alibi similar to the one which is raised by the petitioner that the illegal constructions have already been regularized. Being at the helm of administration, it is for the respondents to decide what is better for the general public. Since the issue of validity of regularization is not an issue in this writ petition, the respondents are directed to consider whether the petitioner has raised any structures in violation of the regularization proceedings and if it is found that it raised any structures contrary to the said regularization proceedings, the respondents are free to take action against the petitioner. However, conversely, if it is found that the petitioner has not raised any construction contrary to the regularization proceedings, the existing structures shall not be removed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.33050 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant City Planner, Circle 2, MCH, Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad. 4 2 CD copies