HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25089 of 2004 Date : 26.08.2009 Between : L. Rajeswar Rao & 2 others. …..Petitioners And The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad & 2 others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25089 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the notice, dated 07.07.2004, issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, in exercise of powers under Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. By the aforesaid notice, the 1st respondent-Commissioner has ordered for vacation of the petitioner from the house in question, on the ground that the said structure is in dangerous and serious condition and is likely to fall, causing danger to the persons occupying the premises. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that earlier, when the premises in question was sought to be demolished without following due process of law, on the ground that the said portion is required for road widening, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2301 of 2003, and by an order dated 7th February 2003, this Court granted directions not to demolish the structures without following due process of law. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that without making any inspection and without getting any technical report from the competent authority, and further, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, respondents have issued the impugned notice for vacation of the premises on false grounds, though the said structure is neither in dangerous nor in serious condition so as to apprehend that it will fall, causing danger to the occupants. 3. At the stage of admission, this Court, by an order dated 30th December 2004, granted directions to maintain status quo, and since then, the said order has been in force during the pendency of the writ petition. 4. Though the writ petition is of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed and there is also no representation on behalf of respondents. 5. From a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is clear that there is no indication of giving any prior opportunity to the petitioners before coming to the conclusion that the structure in question is in dangerous and serious condition and is likely to fall. When it is the case of petitioners that there is no basis for forming such an opinion, the respondents ought to have notified to the petitioners before coming to the conclusion that the structure is in a dangerous condition, as such, it is required vacation under Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. In the absence of any show cause notice to the petitioners and also in the absence of any counter affidavit controverting the allegation of petitioners, I am of the view that the impugned orders are issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. On the said short ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the notice, dated 07.07.2004, issued in Proceedings No.4/TP/SD/MCH/104/2004 by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that if the structure in question is in dangerous condition, this order will not preclude the respondents to give prior notice to the petitioners before recording appropriate finding on the condition of the said structure. 7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th August 2009 ajr