THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 33520 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus challenging notice No.UC/75/9/TPS/C3/EZ/W.17/2011, dated 16.12.2011 issued by the second respondent. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: Late Sri G.Pulla Reddy purchased land admeasuring Ac.2.09 guntas in survey no.44 of Gaddiannaram village under registered sale deeds during the year 1980 and created Trust known as ‘Gunampalli Pulla Reddy Charitable Trust’, and during his life time, he was the Managing Trustee and after his death, his son Sri G.Raghava Reddy has become its Trustee along with others. The petitioner no.1 obtained permission from Grampanchayat in the year 1985 vide permit No.121/P dated 28.11.1985 and made construction, and the respondent municipality assessed the said building and assigned Door No.9-75/1 to it. During life time of late Sri G.Pulla Reddy, two more floors were added to the said building. After his death, the petitioner no.1, vide application no.BPS/9822/C3/EZ/2008, dated 15.7.2008, applied for regularization of the said building viz. No.9-75, Lalitha Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad District and the same is pending. While the matter stood thus, the respondents issued the impugned notice under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’ 1955’) in respect of the premises in question in the name of late Sri G.Pulla Reddy, wherein it is stated that show-cause notice dated 18.7.2011 was issued but no reply was given to it. But, no such show- cause notice was issued to the petitioners. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned notice under Section 636 of the Act, 1955 and also the alleged show cause notice dated 18.7.2011 mentioned therein, were issued in the name of a dead person i.e. Sri G.Pulla Reddy, and the said person died in the year 2007; that application made by the petitioner no.1 for regularization of the building in question under the Building Penalisation Scheme is pending with the respondents, and without taking any decision thereon, the respondents are trying to remove the construction, and hence, he prays to issue direction as prayed for. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents stated that appropriate decision will be taken by the respondents in accordance with law on the application dated 15.7.2008 of the petitioners under the Building Penalisation Scheme and thereafter appropriate decision will also be taken under Section 452 of the Act, 1955. 5. The allegation is that the petitioners said to have constructed ground + 4 upper floors unauthorizedly without any permission. It is not in dispute that the petitioner no.1 made application dated 15.7.2008 by paying required penal charges, for regularization of the unauthorized construction under the Building Penalisation Scheme. Unless appropriate decision is taken by the respondent corporation on the application which is made by the petitioners for regularization, no action can be initiated in respect of the premises in question. 6. Therefore, the respondents are directed to take appropriate decision on the application dated 15.07.2008 made by the petitioner no.1 under Building Penalisation Scheme (BPS) in respect of premises No.9-75 situated in Lalitha Nagar, Dilshuknagar. Till then, they are directed not to proceed with the demolition of the premises in question. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ (K.C.BHANU, J.) 19.12.2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 33520 OF 2011 Date: 19.12.2011