IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4680 of 2008 Between: Atmuri Balarama Venkata Siva Naga Sai Prasad S/o.Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, Male, R/o.D.No. 25-5-25, N.R.Pet, Eluru, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation , Eluru, W.G. District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent in not taking the steps for demolition of the said old dilapidated building, situated in D.No. 25-5-25, N.R. Pet, Eluru, which is adjacent to the R.T.C. Bus Stand , Eluru as illegal, arbitrary and without following the procedure and also against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to consider the representation dt. 28-2-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BOMMANARAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4680 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Sri Atmuri Balarama Venkata Siva Naga Sai Prasad assailing the inaction of the respondent- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Eluru, on his representation for demolition of the structures existing on the premises owned by him. The petitioner is the owner of the house bearing D.No.25-5-25 situated in N.R.Pet, Eluru, which is bounded on South by N.H-5 G.N.T.Road near R.T.C Bus stand. The said building is in dilapidated condition. There is every likelihood of causing danger, if the building is continued to exist. Therefore, he submitted a representation to the respondent seeking for demolition of the said building, which remained unattended. Hence, the writ petition with a prayer stated supra. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Corporation has an obligation to demolish the existing structures on the premises owned by the petitioner, since there is likelihood of causing danger to the public. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me to sub-section (5) (a) of Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, which reads as hereunder:- “Where the Commissioner is of opinion whether on receipt of an application or otherwise that the only or the most convenient means by which the owner or occupier of structure such as is referred to in sub-section (1) can pull down, secure, remove or repair such structure, is by entering any of the adjoining premises belonging to some other person the Commissioner after giving such person a reasonable opportunity of stating any objection may, if no such objection is raised or if any objection which is raised appears to him invalid or insufficient, by an order in writing, authorize the said owner or occupier to enter such adjoining premises.” The factual aspect of filing of the representation by the petitioner before the respondent Corporation is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 30.06.2008 Note: Furnish CC in three days B/o v v