HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9208 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Ajay Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner- bank and Smt Kalpana Ekbote, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and, at their request, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is a nationalized bank. They took on rent a part of the ground floor admeasuring 1085 sq. yards in premises bearing No.1-68/9 (known as Prabhavathi Plaza), plot No.76 in Sy.No.76, Madhapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, from the second respondent under a registered lease dated 15.04.2009. On 12.04.2010, a fire accident is said to have taken place in the fourth floor of the building and the fire was extinguished by the fire service department. The first respondent- Corporation sealed the entire premises, including the premises where the petitioner-bank was conducting banking operations, on the ground that the construction was unauthorized and that permission from the fire department had not been obtained. The petitioner-bank claims to have submitted a representation on 16.04.2010 to the first respondent-Corporation seeking permission to continue their business operations in the ground floor of the building till alternative arrangements are made after getting approval of the Reserve Bank of India. It is the case of the petitioner-bank that it could not be closed even for a single day without permission from the Reserve Bank of India. The closure in the present case is not on the petitioner- bank’s volition but on account of the fire accident which took place earlier and which resulted in, according to the first respondent- Corporation, rendering the building not suitable for habitation. As the building is said to be unsafe, I see no reason to direct the first respondent-Corporation to open the seal or to permit the petitioner- bank to conduct business operations. As the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation, and that the second respondent had submitted a representation enclosing a certificate from an approved structural engineer that the building is safe, ends of justice would be met, if the first respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the petitioner-bank’s representation dated 16.04.2010, in light of the structural engineer’s certificate, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law on or before 26.04.2010, and communicate its decision to the petitioner. The Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:07.04.2010 Note:Wire at party’s cost. bo usd