IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 25804 of 2001 BETWEEN: T. Kumar Rao, S/o. Venkat Rao, R/o. Rampur Village, Warangal District, Rep. by its N. Prakash Rao, G.P.A. ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in issuing proceedings No. 5322 / TPS / ACP / C - 5 / 148 / 2001, Dt. 12.12.2001 in directing me to remove the construction of ground floor in plot No. 92 bearing Municipal No. 8-2-686/2/94 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s H.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SMT KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner submits that he is a member of Sri Venktateswara Co-operative House Building Society (for short ‘the Society’) and he was allotted Plot No.92A. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for regularization by declaration in Form No.A dated 31.08.1998 and the said case is numbered as No.8654 BRS/HO/98. While so, the respondent issued a notice under Section 405 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) in Sl.No.44, Book No.40 dated 12.12.2001 in proceedings No.5322/TPS/ACP/C5/IV8/2001 requesting the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction of ground floor constructed on open space of the park area of the approved layout of the Society. 3. No counter is filed. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that though the said order was issued directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment within twenty four hours, it is stated that the Commissioner is entitled to issue such final notice under Section 405 of the Act without giving any opportunity. 5. I am of the opinion that in certain cases wherever there is urgency to remove the channel drain, tank etc. depending upon the exigencies and circumstances, the Commissioner can initiate action but in the instant case, the petitioner was directed to remove the unauthorized construction on the open space of park area of the layout of the Society; more so the show cause notice do not indicate any particulars of the existence of the encroachment. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the said notice is bereft of any material particulars, the impugned notice is set aside giving liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh show cause notice calling upon the petitioner as to why the unauthorized construction said to have been constructed by him inn the park area shall not be removed and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 10, 2008 DSK