THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 11787 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 19.04.2010, passed by the 1st respondent, whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish the buildings raised by it in the land admeasuring Ac.4.24 gts. in Sy.Nos.53 and 54/A situated at Neknampur village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioner, it is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate and it entered into a Development Agreement- cum-GPA with the owners of the land totally admeasuring Ac.4.24 gts. in Sy.Nos.53 and 54/A situated at Neknampur village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and thereafter, made the said land into plots. It is the case of the petitioner that after obtaining necessary permissions for construction of buildings on the said plots, it started construction work. While so, when the 1st and 2nd respondents were interfering with its construction work, it filed O.S.No.476 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, and obtained interim injunction. While so, on the allegation that the petitioner made constructions on the subject plots without obtaining proper permission from competent authority, the 1st respondent-District Panchayat Officer (FAC), Ranga Reddy District, issued show cause notice dated 16.11.2009 to the petitioner asking it to submit its explanation as to why action for demolition of the subject buildings constructed by it should not be initiated. The petitioner states that pursuant to the show cause notice issued to it, it submitted reply stating that requisite permissions from the competent authorities were obtained by it, for construction of buildings on the subject plots, and as such sought some time to produce all those documents. The grievance of the petitioner is that in support of its claim, it submitted all requisite documents to the respondents, but without considering the same, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.04.2010, after a period of five months. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel on either side. The impugned order reflects that after the show cause notice was issued on 16.11.2009, the petitioner sought some more time to submit its detailed explanation and accordingly another 15 days’ time was granted to it, by letter dated 20.01.2010. It further reflects that the petitioner has not submitted any reply and therefore the 1st respondent passed the impugned order. If that be so, it is not known as to why the 1st respondent has not taken further action immediately after the lapse of 15 days granted to the petitioner, to submit its reply, and waited till 19.04.2010 to pass the impugned order. This apart, according to the petitioner, it has submitted all the relevant documents in support of its claim, but without considering the same, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is given one more opportunity to submit its explanation by treating the impugned order as show cause notice. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: “The petitioner, treating the impugned order as show cause notice, shall submit its explanation thereto within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, on receipt of such explanation, the respondents are directed to take appropriate action, as per law, taking into consideration the explanation of the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner and all other necessary parties, including the implead party petitioner. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained.” There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 24.12.2010 v v