IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11273 of 2008 Between: 1 A.G.Surendranatha Reddy S/o.Late A.G.Nagi Reddy R/o. Plot No.823, Road No.40/41, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033. 2 K.I.Varaprasad Reddy S/o.Late K.I.Venkataramana Reddy R/o. Plot No.822-A, Road No.40, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner and Special Officer, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Medical Officer (Health), Trade Licencing Section, O/o. Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.10, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., (T.A.No.173), rep. by its President, Road No. 17A, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 171. 4 K.T.RAghu Kumar Delhi Drugs Controller Department, R/o.F-17, Karkarduma, Shahdara, New Delhi - 110032. 5 K.Chandra Pavan Reddy Verizon Constructions, R/o. Pent House No.1, 7th Floor, V.V.Vintage Boulerand, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082. 6 Harsha Vardhan Reddy R/o. Pent House No.1, 7th Floor, V.V.Vintage Boulerand, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 in the nature of Writ of 'Mandamus' directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to permit/ allow the respondents 5 and 6 to carry out any commercial activity in the residential premises bearing Plot No.822 (MCH.No.8-2-293/82/A/822) Road No.40/41, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad as per Zoning Regulation No. 6.1.2 read with Appendix 'C' of the Urban Development Authority Zoning Regulations, 1981 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SIVAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11273 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners, who are two in number, with a prayer to issue order, direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-1st Respondent, Assistant Medical Oﬃcer-2nd Respondent not to permit K. Chandra Pavan Reddy-5th Respondent and Harsha Vardhan Reddy-6th respondent to carry out any commercial activity in the residential premises bearing Plot NO.822 (MCH. No. 8-2- 293/82/A/822) Road NO.40/41,Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad as per Zoning Regulation No.6.1.2 r/w Appendix ‘C’ of the Urban Development Authority Zoning Regulations, 1981. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that Respondents No. 4 and 6 are converting the residential premises bearing MCH No. 8-2-293/82/A/822, situated at Road No. 41/1, Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. According to them road Nos 40 and 41 are declared as residential zone and no commercial activity is permissible under Zoning Regulations. Paras 3 and 4 of the aﬃdavit needs to be noted and they are: “3. The facts of the case are that myself and the second petitioner are the permanent residents in the layout of the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited (T.A.No. 173) and constructed residential houses on plot Nos. 822A and 823 on road NO. 40 after obtaining all statutory permissions prior to 1996 and residing there in with our respective families since 1998. We are senior citizens living peacefully in the said residential locality. The 4th respondent is the owner of the residential premises bearing Plot No. 822 on Road No.40/41, in the said Jubilee Hills Co- operative House Building Society Limited, layout and used the same for residential purpose till now. 4.It is pertinent to submit that Road NO.40 and 41 are declared as residential zone and no commercial activity is permissible under Zoning Regulations”. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 28-5-2008 and an interim order also came to be passed on the same day, which reads as hereunder. “There shall be interim direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct immediate inspection of the premises bearing Plot NO. 822(MCH.No. 8-2-293/82/A/822), Road NO.40/41, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad within two days from the date of receipt of this order and if the premises is being converted into a restaurant and the same is contrary to the Zonal Regulation, no permission shall be granted to the restaurant until further orders”. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 reports that the Assistant Medical Oﬃcer inspected the premises and noticed no business activity in the said premises. Learned counsel also reports that no one has approached seeking any trade license to carry out business activities in the premises in question. 5. Respondents 4 to 6 ﬁled WVMP No. 1718 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No. 146331 of 2008. According to respondents 4 to 6, there is no commercial activities in the residential premises of the 4th respondent and therefore the writ petition is premature. For better appreciation I may refer para 6 of the counter aﬃdavit filed on behalf of the respondents 4 to 6 and it is thus: “6. With reference to para 6of the aﬃdavit, as on today there is no commercial activity in the residential premises of the 4th respondent and the answering respondents herein undertake that until unless they obtained statutory permissions from the concerned authorities they are not going to establish any kind of activity. It is premature to state that the 5th and 6th respondents are setting up a subway outlet. The answering respondents are law abiding citizens and will deﬁnitely followed the rules which are mandatory in nature before taking up any activity in the residential premises”. 6. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of counsel for parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the premises in question situated in the residential zone and therefore, no business activities can be permitted to be carried in the said premises. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that as on this day no one approached seeking permission to carry out the business activities in the premises in question. 10. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents NO. 4 to 6 submits that they have not commenced any business activities in the premises in question and in case they intend to carry out any business activities, they will obtain permission from the concerned authority. 11. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the objections raised by the petitioners in the event of respondents 4 to 6 approaching for grant of license for carrying business activities in the premises in question, and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 4th August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11273 OF 2008 4th August, 2008.