HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23995 of 2011 Date : 6-9-2011 Between : A. Sreenidhi w/o.A.Ravendra Reddy .. Petitioner Hyderabad And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, represented by its Commissioner, and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Syed Khader Masthan for Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for respondents : Dr. Y. Padmavathi, Standing Counsel for GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s possession of ground floor of premises No.MIG- 6, Dharma Reddy colony, Phase-I, Kukatpally Housing Board, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Syed Khader Masthan, learned counsel representing Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the above mentioned property. It is the case of the petitioner that as the building is constructed in the property admeasuring 162.5 sq. yards, no place is earmarked for parking. The petitioner received a notice, purportedly under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") wherein it is stated that he is running T.N.G. Showroom in the premises which has no parking facility/insufficient parking/violation of designated parking, thereby causing lot of inconvenience to the inmates and visitors of the building. The petitioner is therefore asked to remove the said construction within seven days, failing which action will be initiated by the respondents-Corporation for removal of the building under the provisions of the Act. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is not preceded by a notice under Section 452(1) of the Act, which mandates issuance of such a notice before an order under Section 636 of the Act is made. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has not disputed that the impugned order is not preceded by a notice under Section 452 of the Act. As the respondents failed to issue the mandatory notice under Section 452(1) of the Act, they cannot straight- away pass an order under Section 636 of the Act. In the light of these facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The impugned order shall be treated as a notice given under Section 452(1) of the Act; (ii) The petitioner is permitted to file an explanation to the said notice within two weeks from today; and (iii) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, if any filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate order before seeking to proceed against the alleged unauthorized construction. As a sequel, WPMP No.29427/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-9-2011 AM