THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.19222 of 2009 DATED: 06.10.2009 Between: Bhawrilal Asawa and others .. Petitioners And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Building, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .. Respondent ORDER: It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased the premises bearing Municipal Nos.4-7-952 to 4-7-955, 4-7-957, 4-7- 958, 4-7-958/1 and 4-7-958/2 situated at Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad, under two registered sale deeds, and constructed a building consisting ground and two upper floors, after obtaining permission from the respondent Corporation, vide permit No.2/25 dated 22.10.2008. While so, the respondent Corporation issued a notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the H.M.C. Act’), on 29.07.2009, alleging that certain portions of the building constructed by the petitioners, as indicated therein, are in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and the petitioners were called upon to show cause in writing, within three days of service of the notice, as to why such portions should not be removed. Petitioners contend that there are no such deviations and, explaining the same, they submitted an explanation to the show-cause notice issued by the respondent Corporation and requested the Corporation to inspect the premises in their presence and they also undertook that, if any deviations are found out during such inspection, they will take steps to set right the same. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, without considering their explanation and without conducting inspection as requested by them, the respondent issued the impugned notice dated 27.08.2009, under Section 636 of the H.M.C. Act, directing them to remove the deviated portions, within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioners constructed the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan without any deviations and the Corporation is not justified in issuing the impugned notice without inspecting the premises as requested by the petitioners. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation supported the impugned notice stating that the petitioners made constructions in deviation of the sanctioned plan. In view of the rival contentions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent Corporation to depute the Assistant City Planner of Circle- 8 to personally visit the subject building and conduct inspection in the presence of the petitioners. The Assistant City Planner, so deputed, shall conduct inspection and mark the deviations, if any, on the building itself, and, thereupon, the petitioners shall remove those deviated portions; failing which the respondent Corporation is at liberty to remove them in accordance with law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 6th October, 2009 IBL