IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22686 of 2008 Between: S. Agasthya Sharma, S/o. Shri Sk. Shastry, r/o. H.No. 1-9-321/4, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 044. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy. Commissioner, Circle No. 9, GHMC, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. City Planner, Circle No. 9, GHMC, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction, preferably, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in insisting for obtaining 'No Objection Certiﬁcate' from the District Collector Hyderabad, to receive Building Application Form and accord permission, as arbitrary and illegal and against the principles of law and be pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 to receive Building Application Form and accord permission, as arbitrary and illegal and against the principles of law and be pleased to direct Respondent No. 3 to receive Building Application Form from petitioner in respect of premises bearing Municipal Door No. 1-9-322 (part), situated at Vidya Nagar, Hyderabad - 44, to accord permission to construct Ground plus First. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by S.Agasthya Sarma assailing the action of the respondents in insisting ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ from the District Collector to receive the building permission application. The petitioner claims to be the owner of premises bearing Municipal Door No.1-9-322. The respondents allegedly insisted the petitioner to produce ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ from the District Collector for entertaining the building permission application. The action of the respondents in insisting him to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector is under challenge in the writ petition. When the writ petition came up for consideration, Sri R.Rama Chandra Reddy, learned standing counsel of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of R1 to R3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of R1 to R3. The issue involved in this writ petition is no more res integra in view of the proposition of law laid down by this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District and another [1] and i n District Collector, Hyderabad and another v. N.Krishna Mohan and others[2]. The proposition of law laid down in the above two decisions came to be referred in B.Murali v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[3] wherein it has been held that the Corporation cannot insist No Objection Certiﬁcate from the District Collector or revenue authorities for entertaining building permission application. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to receive building permission application of the petitioner without insisting for production of ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate‘ from the District Collector or revenue authorities, and consider the same in accordance with the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Rules framed thereunder. No costs. _________ 17-10-2008 Note: Issue CC by two days. (B.O) rkk [1] 2001(3) ALT 200 [2] 2000(3) ALT 525 [3] 2006(6) ALT 198