THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 7746 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioner claims to be a tenant of Flat No. 102, Sai Bhagwan Sadan Apartments, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, since 2007. He states that he is using the said flat as office-cum-residence for his partnership firm by name M/s. K.N.R. Projects. While so, the petitioner states that impleaded respondent Nos. 4 to 9 lodged a complaint against him before respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stating that he is causing nuisance and harassment to the inmates in the building. When respondent Nos. 1 to 3 tried to interfere, by issuing notice dated 26.03.2010 under Section 441 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) , stating that he has obtained permission for construction of residential building, but converted the same into commercial use, and that he is running the trade without any valid trade licence. The petitioner states that immediately, he submitted his explanation. Thereafter, he filed suit in O.S. No. 976 of 2010 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and obtained injunction orders in I.A. No. 200 of 2010. However, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 1 to 3, without considering his explanation, issued final notice dated 01.04.2010 under Section 622 of the Act, stating that he has made deviations/unauthorized usage/misuse of building and that he has failed to comply them and he has nothing to offer, and on the very same day, under the impugned panchanama, closed and seized the business premises of the petitioner. The petitioner states that he is not the owner of the flat, and as such, the action of respondent No. 3 in issuing notice under Sections 441 and 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is illegal and arbitrary. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 to 3 submitted that have initiated the due process based on the complaint lodged by unofficial respondent Nos. 4 to 9, in that they have issued notices calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he shall not remove the illegal constructions/unauthorized usage/misuse of building, and as there was no response from the petitioner, they passed final orders, which is permitted under law. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 9 submitted that the business activity being carried on by the petitioner is causing nuisance and disturbance to the inmates of the building. Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 therefore lodge complaint, and based on the said complaint, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 initiated action against the petitioner, and no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 9. The petitioner, admittedly, is not the owner of the flat in question, and he is only a tenant of the same. Respondent No.3, namely the Assistant Medical Officer of Health, issued notice dated 26.03.2010 to the petitioner under Sections 441 and 622 of the Hyderabad, stating that the petitioner has converted the flat into commercial use in the name and style of M/s. KNR Projects and also running the trade without obtaining valid trade licence which is against the provisions of the Act, and called upon him to bring the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan within three days failing which further action will be initiated, including closer of trade, as per the provisions of the Act. The petitioner states that he submitted his explanation to the notice. The fact that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the notice is not denied by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. However, respondent No.3 without adverting to the stand taken by the petitioner in explanation to the show cause notice, merely stating that after careful examination of the explanation, he found that the same is not satisfactory, that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions and also respond to the notice, and deeming that the petitioner has nothing to offer, passed order dated 01.04.2010 closing the establishment of the petitioner. A perusal of the provisions of Section 441 to 443 of the Act would disclose that the relate to conversion of building for purposes other than for which permission is granted and that no alternations can be made without permission of the Commissioner, and they do not relate to or deal with any trade licence. If according to respondent No.3, building is constructed or constructions are made in deviation of the sanctioned plan, then he has to issue notice to the owner of the building/flat as the case may be, under Section 452 of the Act and after considering the explanation, if any, pass final order under Section 636 of the Act. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Since respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order dated 01.04.2010 without considering the explanation of the petitioner, the same is violated, the same is set aside. And as on oral directions of the Court, respondent No.3 is said to have already removed the seals of the premises of the petitioner, no directions be granted by this Court in that regard. The notice dated 26.03.2010 issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3, shall be treated as one issued under Section 452 of the Act. Since the petitioner knows about the violations, and he having already submitted his explanation, now cannot contend that fresh notice has to be issued to him once again by the respondents. Inasmuch as the petitioner has already submitted his explanation, and as respondent No.3 without considering the same has passed final order, and the final order having been set aside by this Court, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 31st August, 2010 KSR