The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.12517 of 2004 Order: Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer: “to issue an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the purported forfeiture of bank guarantee and declaring non-eligibility of Occupancy Certificate by the respondents in respect of building bearing premises No.5-9-19, situated at Secretariat, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and forbear the respondents from forfeiting the bank guarantee as extended by the Senior Manager, Corporation Bank, Nehru Nagar, Secunderabad upto 18-12-2004.” Petitioner was granted permission for construction of commercial complex consisting cellar, stilt and five upper floors vide permit No.155/20, File No.316/TP6/2000, dated 18-07-2001, by the respondents. When the respondents noticed certain deviations in the construction undertaken by the petitioner, they issued notice, dated 12-11-2002, to the petitioner to show cause within seven days as to why the said deviations be not removed and the petitioner filed his explanation on 19-11-2002. When the respondents tried to demolish the said structures, without considering his explanation, dated 19-11-2002, he filed W.P.No.24220 of 2002 and this Court granted interim direction to the respondents not to demolish the structures raised by the petitioner. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner submitted application bearing No.BPS/21/8/C2/08 for regularization of the structures raised in deviation to the sanctioned plan and the same was received in the office of the respondents on 29th February, 2008. In view of the same, WP.No.24220 of 2002 was disposed of on 15-06-2009, directing the respondents not to take any steps for demolition of the structures till appropriate orders are passed on the said application. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondents in not issuing the occupancy certificate and taking steps for forfeiture of bank guarrantee of Rs.2,00,300/- furnished by him. It is the case of the petitioner that apart from filing his explanation, dated 19-11-2002, he submitted representation, dated 23-11-2002, along with revised plan for approval before the second respondent and that inasmuch as there was no rejection of the said application within the statutory period, the revised plan is deemed to have been approved and construction made according to it is deemed to be legal. During pendency of this Writ Petition, certain amendments were made to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and Rules made thereunder, whereby the Municipal authorities are empowered to regularize the structures raised in deviation to the sanctioned plan. In view of the subsequent events, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner in this case that inasmuch as the application filed by the petitioner under Building Penalization Scheme is still pending consideration, respondents are not entitled to forfeit the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the event of the structures, which are constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan, being regularized, the petitioner is entitled for occupancy certificate as well as for refundable deposit also. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation that security is deposited only to ensure that the construction is made in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that the petitioner, having made the construction in deviation to the sanctioned plan, is not entitled for refund of the security deposited by way of bank guarantee. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.423, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M1), dated 31-07- 1998, for Rationalization of Floor Area Ratio and other standards with regard to building requirements. The security deposit, which is collected at the time of issuance of permit to the petitioner, is in terms of Clause 11 of the said G.O. Clause 11 reads as under: 11.Security deposit: The security deposited in cash or bank guarantee or FDR pledged with the local body at the rate specified below, shall be payable to the authority in case of all buildings applications all terms /group housing/ an institutional and for commercial buildings in plots above 300 square meters (1) Municipal Corporation Area Rs.1 square meter of total built up area (2) for UDA areas excluding Municipal Corporation Areas/Rs.50,000/- square meter of total built up area. The security deposit will be refunded by local authority only on production of occupancy certificate issued by the concerned local authority” Although it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has violated the sanctioned plan and made constructions in deviation thereof, it is to be noted that in view of the amendment to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the Scheme notified thereunder, the petitioner has already filed his application No.BPS/21/8/C2/08 for regularization of his construction under BPS. In case, the structures, alleged to have been constructed by the petitioner in deviation of the sanctioned plan, are regularized under the Building Penalization Scheme, the petitioner would be entitled to occupancy certificate and consequently, for refund of the security deposit. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents not to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,300/- furnished by the petitioner till his application filed under BPS is disposed of by the competent authority. The petitioner also shall extend the validity of the bank guarantee from time to time till disposal of the said application. It is needless to mention that in case the structures raised by the petitioner are regularized under the BPS and if the petitioner is given the occupancy certificate for the said building, the respondents shall refund the security deposited by the petitioner by way of bank guarrantee on production of occupancy certificate as per G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 31-07-1998. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 12th November, 2009 lur