IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.18967 of 2009 Between: C. Yadaiah, S/o. C. Rajaiah, R/o.8-1-225, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 2. Assistant City Planner, Circle No.10, GHMC, Hyderabad-1. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. S. Sridhar Counsel for respondents: Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, S.C. for MCH Order: As much as no final orders are passed pursuant to the objections filed by the petitioner, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing him to go ahead with the construction of his house in the premises bearing No.8-1- 225, situated at Shaikpet, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid house property, constructed in 114 sq. yards, having purchased the same from its previous owner Sri C. Balaiah, on 17-08-1971, by registered sale deed bearing No.1548/1971. It is the case of the petitioner that the said house was partitioned between himself and his brother and as it was in dilapidated condition, he made constructions by obtaining permission. It is his grievance that the respondents have issued notice dated 24-08-2009 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 alleging that the constructions undertaken by him are unauthorized and asked him to show cause as to why the structures shall not be removed. It is stated that though the petitioner has submitted representation dated 28-08-2009 to the respondents bringing to their notice that he has obtained necessary permission for construction, no orders have been passed and he is not being allowed to proceed with the construction. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has obtained permission for construction and in response to the notice dated 24-08-2009 he has submitted representation dated 28- 08-2009 to the respondents, but no orders are passed. Whether the constructions being made by the petitioner are based on valid permission or not is a matter, which is in the domain of the respondents. While the respondents allege that the petitioner has not obtained permission for construction, the case of the petitioner is that the construction being made him is covered by valid permission. In that view of the matter, even before the said representation dated 28-08-2009 submitted by the petitioner is considered by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be allowed to proceed with the construction. As much as no final orders are passed pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to take any steps for demolition of the structures or any part of the house in question till the representation dated 28-08-2009 submitted by the petitioner is considered and appropriate orders are passed. Till such time, the petitioner is also directed not to make any further construction. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 15, 2009 MRR