IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10038 of 2009 Between: D.Parameswar S/o.Late D.Manikyam Resident of H.No.3-3-70/1,Sagar mansion Apartment Qutbiguda, Hyderabad-500027 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner,Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.8,. Abids,Hyderabad 3 The Asst.City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, circle No.8,Abids,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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the partly constructed structure in petitioner share of land bearing Municipal No.4-2-786 and 787 (Old MCH.No.376) situated at Ramkote, Hyderabad without passing orders on the explanation dated 24.4.2009 submitted by the petitioner to the Notice No.A4/ACP/TP/08/GHMC/2009 dated 21.4.2009 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 10038 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing Municipal No.4-2-786 and 787 (old MCH.No..376) at Ramkote, Hyderabad. The first respondent issued notice dated 21.04.2009 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the building in question should not be removed alleging that the same was found to be contrary to the sanctioned plan. The petitioner states that he submitted his explanation on 24.04.2009. However, without passing any final order, the respondents sought to demolish the structures in question. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed. This Court, while issuing Rule nisi, by order, dated 13.05.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.12983 of 2009, directed the respondents not to demolish the structures in question. At the same time, the petitioner was directed not to make any further constructions. Though no counter affidavit is filed, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation under instructions stated that in spite of the interim order dated 13.05.2009 passed by this Court, the petitioner has been proceeding with further constructions and RCC slab has been laid at ground floor. However, the fact that no final order is passed till today pursuant to the show cause notice dated 21.04.2009 and the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 24.04.2009 has not been disputed. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the rival claims made by the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 24.04.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondents shall not resort to demolition of the structures in question. However, it is made clear that in case, the petitioner is proceeding with further constructions contrary to the interim direction of this Court dated 13.05.2009, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps forthwith in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 02-07-2009 KLP