IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeal No. 478 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/02/2008 in Writ Petition No.: 22216 of 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dr.Guda Bhavani, W/o.Dr.Kembavi Srinivas, M/s. Satya Sai Bhavani Hospital Private Limited, Plot Nos. 1 to 3, Sy.Nos. 279 and 280/P, Main Road, Shapur Nagar, Quthubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... APPELLANT AND 1) KM Pratap, S/o. Manikyam, R/o. Chintal, R/o.Quthbullapur(V) & (M), Ranga Reddy District. 2) The Mang.Dir.& Vice-Chairman, A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corp.Ltd.,IDA, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District. 3) The Vice Chairman, (HUDA, Greater Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad. 4) The Municipal Commissioner, Quthbullapur Municipalilty, RR District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.K. LAKSHMAN Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR.K.V.SIMHADRI Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR.M. DHANANJAYA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR.R. RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.3.2008 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22216 of 2004, this appeal has been ﬁled by original respondent No.4 in the writ petition, who is alleged to have put up construction in violation of the building bye-laws. 2. After hearing the learned advocates and upon perusal of the record, the learned Single Judge has directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to demolish the unauthorized construction put up by the appellant, which is contrary to the sanctioned building plan. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the afore-stated direction could not have been given by the learned Single Judge in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muni Suvrat- Swami Jain S.M.P.Sangh v. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad[1]. It has been submitted by him that at the most, the learned Single Judge could have given direction to the concerned authorities to examine the legality of the construction put up by the appellant and should have directed the said respondents to decide the matter on merits after aﬀording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we are in agreement with the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellant. We, therefore, allow the appeal by giving a direction to the afore-stated respondents to consider the question with regard to demolition of unauthorized construction put up by the appellant after hearing the appellant, if not heard so far, and if it is found that the construction is in violation of the building bye-laws and is not as per the sanctioned plan, the respondent authorities shall act in accordance with law. 5. The impugned order is modiﬁed accordingly and the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August 21, 2008 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {RLD} [1] (2006) 8 SCC 590