HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12114 of 2010 1st June 2010 Between: Rajinikanth Misra @ Raju … PETITIONER(S) and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Lower Tankbund Road, Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12114 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri B.Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims to have sought sanction for construction of a ground plus first floor building by way of application dated 11.02.2010. The petitioner’s neighbour is said to have filed O.S.No.5535 of 2009 before the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner stating that he had encroached an extent of 5' of land towards northern/southern side of her property. Along with the suit the petitioner’s neighbour filed I.A.No.555 of 2009 seeking ad-interim injunction. The said I.A. was dismissed on 23.03.2010. The petitioner claims to have communicated the dismissal of the said I.A. to the Assistant City planner of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and to have requested on 26.03.2010 for expedition of sanction of the building plan. On the ground that sanction was not accorded, even though 54 days had expired since he had submitted an application for construction of the building, the petitioner claims to have issued a notice under Sections 437 and 440 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the Act’), for commencement of work on 06.05.2010 and to have commenced construction. On the very same day i.e. 06.05.2010, the respondents’ subordinates are said to have come in a jeep and to have tried to demolish the petitioner’s structures. The petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents in O.S.No.1950 of 2010 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which the petitioner claims to be still pending adjudication. Thereafter, the respondents are said to have issued notice dated 13.05.2010 under Section 452 of the Act for the unauthorized construction resorted to by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation to the Section 452 notice on 17.05.2010. It is his case that on 21.05.2010 the respondents’ subordinates came in a jeep and sought to demolish the structures necessitating his filing a suit in O.S.No.77 of 2010 before the Vacation Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on 24.05.2010, to have the notice under Section 452 of the Act declared null and void. The petitioner would contend that the Vacation Judge passed an order of status-quo on 27.05.2010. He is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing a notice under Section 636 of the Act on 26.05.2010. It is this notice issued under Section 636 of the Act which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. On a query from this Court, Sri B.Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that the notice under Section 636 of the Act is consequent to the notice issued earlier under Section 452 of the Act and, in case the suit filed by the petitioner herein were to be allowed and the Section 452 notice declared null and void by the Civil Court, the notice under Section 636 of the Act would not survive. The petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court questioning the Section 452 notice and, since the Section 636 notice is only a consequence of the Section 452 notice issued earlier, it is not open to the petitioner, when the suit in O.S.No.77 of 2010 is pending adjudication before the Civil Court, to simultaneously invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has elected to approach the Civil Court in this regard, I see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to permit the petitioner to simultaneously invoke two parallel remedies and entertain the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 1st June 2010 CVRK