IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3281 of 2009 Between: Sripuram Deendayal S/o. Late S. Narayanaswamy D.No.6-7-630/E, Sripuram Colony, K.T.Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tilak Road, Tirupati rep. by its Commissioner. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue aany writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the final notice of demolition issued by the respondent on 11.02.2009 under Sec.405 of Municipal Corporation Act regarding the Sripuram Ramakrishnamma Kalyanamandapam and adjoining residential houses situated at D.No.6-7-630, Sripuram Colony, K.T. Road, Tirupati of writ petitioner, his brothers and descendants of deceased eldest brother is contrary to the undertaking given in W.P.No.302/2009 on 28.01.2009, ultravires, arbitrary, devoid of jurisdiction, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and pass just and appropriate orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.GOPALA KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that this Court, in a similar writ petition in W.P.No.302 of 2009 by recording the undertaking given by the learned standing Counsel for Tirupati Municipal Corporation, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent-Corporation not to demolish any structures or take away any portion of the petitioner’s property or dispossess him and in case the respondent proposes to acquire any piece of land belonging to the petitioner, they shall certainly issue notice to the petitioner and follow due process under law. The petitioner states that he was not issued any prior notice with regard to the proposal of demolition of Sripuram Ramakrishnamma Kalyanamandapam, and his grievance is that the respondent- Corporation, in violation of the orders passed by this Court, issued Final Notice, dated 11.2.2009 alleging that the petitioner was already issued a notice dated 9.1.2009, calling upon him to show cause as to why Kalyanamandapam should not be demolished. That though he gave reply dated 13.2.2009 stating that the respondents by misinterpreting the earlier orders in writ petition and in breach of undertaking given to this Court in W.P.No.302 of 2009, have sent its subordinates on 17.2.2009 to the site calling upon him to vacate and surrender Kalyanamandapam or else they would get it demolished, but no action thereon had been taken, and based on the Final Notice, they are threatening to demolish the Kalyanamandapam. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Tirupati Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, admittedly, has submitted his explanation to the respondent No.1 only on 13.02.2009, and it is too premature to say that the respondent would not act consider his explanation/objection. The petitioner without even giving some time to the respondent to act on his explanation/objection, has filed the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is premature, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order that may be passed by the respondent after considering his explanation/objection, he is at liberty to challenge the same by way of another writ petition. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19th February, 2009 bcj