IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22191 of 2007 Between: 1 Mathew Kurian, S/o. Koshy Kurian, D.No. 3-6-364 & 364/A, Liberty X Roads, Hyderabad. 2 Eswar Singh, S/o. Narayan Singh, D.No. 3-6-364 & 364/A, Liberty X Roads, Hyderabad. 3 Rajakumar, S/o. Parameswar Pillai, D.No. 3-6-364 & 364/A, Liberty X Roads, Hyderabad. 4 R. Rajendran, S/o. P. Ramalingam, D.No. 3-6-364 & 364/A, Liberty X Roads, Hyderabad. 5 Bajrang, S/o. Gupta, D.No. 3-6-364 & 364/A, Liberty X Roads, Hyderabad. 6 Sandhya Kaur, W/o. Seva Singh, D.No. 3-6-364 & 364/A, Liberty X Roads, Hyderabad. 7 Seva Singh, S/o.Narayan Singh, D.No. 3-6-364 & 364/A, Liberty X Roads, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. byits Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Parking Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 Surender Lunity, S/o.NOt Known to the Petitioners, M/s. Kushal Liberty, D.No. 4-4-248, Sutltan Bazar, Hyderabad. .....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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in initiating the action for demolishing of the premises No. 6-3-364 and 6-3-364/A, Liberty X Roads, Hyderabad at the behest of 3rd respondent and threatening to demolishing the premises without conducting necessary enquiry and without giving us opportunity to adduce the evidence and without issuing the final order under Section 456 of the H.M.C. Act, 1955 as illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, SC for MCH The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners who are the tenants in premises bearing No. 6- 3-364 and 6-3-364/A situated at Liberty Cross Roads, Hyderabad question the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in taking steps to demolish the said premises without following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have issued notice dated 10-09-2007 to the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent – owner under Section 459 of the Act stating that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and to file their objections as to why action should not be initiated as contemplated under Section 456 of the Act. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the notice issued under Section 459 of the Act, they have filed their objections, but without taking any further steps and passing appropriate orders thereon, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are taking steps for demolition of the building in question at the instance of respondent No.3. It is their allegation that respondent No. 3 earlier got issued noticed dated 06- 08-2007 in similar lines and thereafter at his instance only, further steps are being taken for demolition of the building though it is not old and dangerous. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle – III, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation while admitting that the petitioners are the tenants of the building in question, it is stated that some portions which are affected in road widening were already taken possession of by them with the consent of the 3rd respondent and with the cooperation of the petitioners – tenants. It is further stated that as the remaining structures are in dilapidated condition, they have issued the impugned notice inviting objections from the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent. It is further stated that the petitioners have filed their objections along with the stability certificate issued by one Sri B. Jagannath Rao, Chartered Engineer and that even before the said objections are considered, they approached this Court. Inasmuch as it is stated that pursuant to the notice issued under Section 459 of the Act, no orders are passed on the objections submitted by the petitioners and as the matter is pending consideration, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed not to take further steps for demolition, till appropriate orders are passed on the objections filed by the petitioners. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are further directed that till expiry of 15 days from the date of service of orders to be passed on the objections filed by the petitioners pursuant to notice dated 10-09-2007, no steps for demolition of the building in question shall be taken by them. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29-04-2009 ks