IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10001 of 2009 Between: Smt. Patteti Shasikala, W/o.Balaswamy, R/o. H.No.1-1-500/A, Sri Sri Nagar, (Nehru Nagar), Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Scretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Suryapet, Municipality, Suryapeta, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order No.H1/1023/2009 dated 29-04-2009 and declare the said impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.10001 OF 2009 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of house bearing No.1-1-500/A in an extent of 145 sq.yds., situated at Sri Sri Nagar (Nehru Nagar), Suryapet, Nalgonda District. The house was constructed after obtaining necessary permission from the municipal authorities for construction of two floors in the year 2002 and also paid the building permission fee of Rs.5,818/- on 03-07-2002. The municipal authorities also allotted the said municipal number and the petitioner is paying the municipal tax from time to time. While so, the second respondent issued the impugned notice dated 29-04-2009 stating that first floor was constructed without obtaining any permission and towards the northern side of the building, first floor was constructed without leaving the open space and ventilators were fixed. In that connection, one K.Kanakaiah made a complaint and accordingly, the said notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to explain within 7 days as to why the said unauthorized constructions shall not be removed. The impugned notice is not in the nature of final order, and that the second respondent does not furnish any particulars with regard to the sanctioned plan and the alleged deviations. So also, the petitioner also not filed the sanctioned plan and also not stated as to how she has not deviated the permission with regard to constructions. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned notice dated 29-04-2009 is directed to be treated as a show- cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation with regard to the alleged deviations and the petitioner is permitted to file explanation within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order enclosing all the necessary documents such as sanctioned plan, permits, tax receipts etc., and on filing such representation, the second respondent may consider and dispose of the same after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. MAY 13, 2009 Tsr/Ds.