IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT PETITION No.21105 of 2009 Between: A.G.H.Associates, A partnership Firm, Rep. By Managing Partner Sri Harish Deepak Idnani. … Petitioner And The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, rep. By its Commissioner, Tenneti Bhavan, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam … Respondent The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT PETITION No.21105 OF 2009 ORDER: - This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus, to declare the proposed action of the respondent to demolish the constructing flats in Plot No.86, T.S.No.46 of Waltair Ward, of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Sections 452 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (For short, “the Act”) and to direct the respondent not to demolish any portion of the said flats. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, is M/s.AGH Associates, which is doing contracts in Civil Works. The petitioner’s Managing partner approached the GPA Holder and the remaining heirs of original purchaser to develop the property to an extent of 467 sq.yds., being plot No.MIG-86 of Pithapuram VUDA layout. They have accepted the petitioner’s offer and delivered possession on 06.05.2008, along with plan papers submitted to the respondent in B.A.No.10448/08/AcP-II/62, dated 10.03.2008. It is further stated that after approval of plan, the petitioner started construction of stilt for parking, ground plus 4 upper floors as per approved plan and thereby executed a deed of Development Agreement dated 23.06.2009 and thus the petitioner is the developer of the property. It is further stated that due to neighbourhood disputes, one of the neighbours made a representation to the respondent alleging that by constructing the building, the petitioner has violated the approved plan. Thereby, the respondent deputed its Assistant Town Planner to inspect the constructing building and found that there is no violation. Not satisfying with the report, the neighbour repeatedly submitting complaints to the respondent and trying to influence the respondent by filing writ petitions. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though it is proceeding with the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the officials of the respondent frequently visiting and threatening to demolish the construction. Earlier, a neighbour raised an objection with regard to the deviations and other things and lodged a complaint to the respondent and the respondent has examined the grievance of the neighbour and passed an order dated 22.01.2009 stating that there is no truth in the allegations or the objections raised by the neighbour. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. It is seen that the Commissioner has deputed the Assistant City Planner to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the complaint lodged by the neighbour and he noticed that there is no deviation. Nonetheless, the officials of the Municipal Corporation are coming and threatening to demolish the structures raised by the petitioner. It is needless to mention that the officials have to discharge their statutory functions in accordance with the Act, by issuing show cause notice under Section 452 of the Act and by passing final order under Section 636 of the Act. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent not to demolish the structures, without following the due process of law. Hence the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent not to demolish the structures raised by the petitioner in Plot No.86, T.S.No.46 of Waltair Ward, of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, without following the due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) 30.09.2009. Lmv/Stp