HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4751 OF 2008 Date: 15th July 2010 Between: Kittu Sood. … Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4751 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed, questioning the notice, dated 23rd July 2007, issued in ACP/C5/MCH/2007, under Section 441 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, by the 2nd respondent-Assistant City Planner, Circle-V, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. By the aforesaid notice, the 2nd respondent gave directions to the petitioner to bring the building use in conformity with the sanctioned plan, failing which, further action will be taken. In the notice, it is alleged that though in respect of the premises bearing No. 6-3- 865/1/1/203, situated at Green lands, Hyderabad, permission is obtained for residential purpose, but the petitioner is using the same for commercial purposes, by running a beauty parlour by name ‘Sharon Beauty School and Shoppe’. Mainly, the impugned notice is questioned on two grounds. Firstly, that the Assistant City Planner, Circle-V of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is not competent to issue such notice, and the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation alone has got such power, and secondly, it is stated that as the petitioner is also running classes in the premises, it cannot be treated as a commercial use. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant City Planner, Circle-V of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In the counter, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the Flat owners of the apartment complex in the premises bearing No. 6-3-865/1/1/203, have filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner is using the flat for commercial activity and they requested to take necessary action. It is also stated that in response to the impugned notice, the petitioner has also filed her explanation, undertaking to close down the business activity. Section 441 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 contemplates that no person of the building shall use the premises for any purposes other than the one for which it was originally constructed, except under written permission from the Commissioner. Section 119 of the Act allows the officers of the Corporation to exercise the powers of the Commissioner, which are generally or specifically empowered by the Commissioner to perform, under the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent-Authority is empowered to act on behalf of the Commissioner. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Assistant City Planner, Circle-V, is not competent to issue the impugned notice. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is only running the classes in beautician course, as such, the same cannot be treated as a commercial activity, but at the same time, petitioner is also doing business by entertaining the customers by running beauty parlour also. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the said activity of the petitioner, which is being done by collecting charges from the customers, is not a commercial activity. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any permission from the Commissioner as contemplated under Section 441 of the Act, the petitioner cannot use the premises for any commercial activity. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice, dated 23rd July 2007, issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 441 of the Act. However, during the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has filed an application before the respondents, seeking permission under Section 441 of the Act, but however, no material is placed before this Court to indicate that any such application is filed, seeking for permission to use the premises for commercial activity. In that view of the matter, if any application is filed by the petitioner for conversion of building use, it is open for the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. But at the same time, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice, dated 23rd July 2007. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 441 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. If any such application is filed, it is open for the competent authority to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th July 2010 ajr