HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. NO: 15094 of 2009 O R D E R:- The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the House bearing No.12-1-1093 in an extent of 79.16 Sq. yards of land, situated at North Lallaguda, Secunderabad, having acquired the same from his grandmother, Smt. Lala Bee, by way of a registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 07.04.2009. According to the petitioner, the house in question, which was constructed more than fifty years ago, is in dilapidated condition, as such, he started renovation work by raising pillars. While so, the 1st respondent issued Show Cause Notice dated 01.07.2009 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) directing the petitioner to explain as to why the construction made in the premises shall not be demolished on the ground that the same is being undertaken by the petitioner without obtaining permission from the authority. Then, the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 17.7.2009. However, the 1st respondent, without considering his explanation, issued Final Notice dated 24.07.2009 directing the petitioner to remove the structures within a period of 24 hours, failing which, the same would be removed by the Corporation itself. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the Final Notice and issue consequential directions to the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner. On 27.07.2009, when the matter was taken up for admission, this Court, while granting time to the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondents to get instructions, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Notice dated 24.07.2009. Today, when the matter is called, the learned Standing Counsel reported no instructions. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that that the 1st respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner issued the impugned notice and taking steps to demolish the structures in the property in question. He submitted that the petitioner has made constructions only within the extent of 100 Sq. mtrs of site, which squarely covers the petitioner’s property admeasuring 79.16 Sq. yards equivalent to 66.23 Sq. mtrs., for which no permission from the respondent-Corporation is required in view of Rule 1(a) of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 423, dated 31.7.1998, as such, he prays to set aside the impugned Notice. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From a perusal of the impugned Notice issued under Section 636 of the Act, it is clear that the impugned notice is in the nature of final order directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized structures within 24 hours, and it nowhere indicates any reasons for non-consideration of the explanation, dated 17.07.2009 submitted by the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the Notice dated 24.07.2009 impugned in this writ petition was issued without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, and having regard to the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property in which the petitioner executed repair works is within the extent of 100 Sq. mtrs. which is permissible in view of the Rule 1(a) of the Orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 423, dated 31.7.1998, and the said submission, having not been controverted by the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Notice, dated 24.07.2009, which is in the nature of final order, is hereby set aside, and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the explanation dated 17.07.2009 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain Status Quo obtaining as on today. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 3rd August, 2008 bcj