THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3582 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner No.1 accorded permission by respondent No.1 on 31.08.2010 to construct ground + two upper floors in premises bearing Nos.15-21-158 and 159 of Kukatpally Village and Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondents served a notice, dated 12.01.2011, under Section 452 (2) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) upon petitioner No.1. It was alleged that petitioner No.1 is unauthorisedly constructing third floor and that he did not respond to the notices issued earlier under different provisions of the Act. The petitioners challenge the impugned notice. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that a mention is made in the impugned notice to the earlier notices, dated 24.12.2010 and 05.01.2011, issued under various provisions of the Act. However, it is not mentioned that the notices were served. Unless the notices are served, the petitioners cannot be expected to reply. Even now, the impugned notice can be treated as the one under Section 452 (1) of the Act and the petitioners can be permitted to submit explanation. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the impugned notice shall be treated as the one under Section 452 (1) of the Act and leaving it open to the petitioners to submit their explanation within a period of ten days from today. The respondents shall not take any further steps till the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioners is considered and further orders are passed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 15.02.2011. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl