IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19696 of 2008 Between: 1 Mithanlal S/o. Late Gulabchand R/o. H.No.615, Lepakshi Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 2 Mohanlal S/o. Late Gulabchand R/o. Flat No.4, Meghana Apartments, Road No.1, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Liberty, Hyderabad. 2 G. Bhaskar Rao S/o. G. Eshwaraiah R/o.22, Hyderbasti, Secunderabad. 3 Rajendra Kumar Modi S/o. Late Makhan Lal Modi R/o. H.No.7-2-604 & 605, Takkarbasti, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.84/TPS/C-18/N2/GHMC/2008 dated 06.09.2008 issued by the 1st respondent under section 456 of the HMC Act is illegal, arbitrary, malaﬁde and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 19696 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners who are two in number with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Proceeding No. 84/TPS//C- 18/N2/GHMC/2008, dated 6-9-2008 issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by it Commissioner, Hyderabad-1st respondent under Section 456 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act as illegal, arbitrary and malafide. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. 3. Learned standing counsel reports that against an order passed under Section 456, the aggrieved party has a remedy of appeal under Section 654 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and therefore the petitioners have to work out their remedy as provided under section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the notice impugned in the writ petition, time allowed to the petitioner is only three days, which cannot be termed as reasonable time. 5. In view of the fact that an appeal is provided against the order impugned in the writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to avail the remedy available under section 654 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. There shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to the structure on the premises bearing Nos.7-2-626, 7-2-625 and 7-2-603 for a period one week so a to enable the petitioners to approach the competent Court and obtain necessary orders. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 10th September, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 19696 OF 2008 10th September, 2008.