IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17893 of 2008 Between: Omes Ahmed S/o.Shaik Ahmedullah Rep. by his G.P.A. Shaik Ahmedullah S/o. Shaik Hussain aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3-6-369/A/6, Street No.1, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Municipal Administration, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....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 an order, direction writ one in the nature of writ Mandamus directing the respondents to act according to law, declaring the action of the respondent insisting NOC along with application for building permission as arbitrary illegal, void consequently direct the respondents to grant forth with building permission in respect of the house, bearing No. 8-1-297/2/E/11, Plot No. 44 & 45) and No. 8-1- 297/2, admeasuring 466.66 sq. yds situated at Shaikpet Village, known as Falcon Valley Hyderabad, Municipal No. 8-1-292/2/E/25, (Plot No. 93 and 94) Old No. 8-1- 297/2 admeasuring 510.63 sq. yards situated at Shaikpet Village, known as Falcon Valley, Hyderabad and Municipal No. 8-1-297/2/E/12 (plot No. 46 and 47 ) Old No. 8-1-297/2, Admeasuring 621.66 sq. yards situated at Shaikpet Village known as Falcon Valley Hyderabad without insisting upon the NOC from the Joint Collector, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 17893 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Omes Ahmed assailing the action of the 2nd respondent in not entertaining building permission application and insisting production of ‘No Objection Certificate’. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the house bearing No. 8- 1-297/2/E/11 (Plot Nos. 44 and 45) NO. 8-1-297/2, admeasuring 466.66 square yards, 8-1-297/2/E/25, (Plot NO. 93 and 94) admeasuring 510.63 square yards, 8-1- 297/2/E/12 (Plot Nos. 46 and 47) admeasuring 621.66 square yards situated at Shaikpet village known as Falcon Valley, Hyderabad having purchased the same under registered sale deeds. 3. He approached the 2nd respondent –Corporation with an application seeking permission to construct building on the premises purchased by him. The 2nd respondent refused to entertain the application and insisted production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector. Assailing the action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad received notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in insisting ‘No Objection Certificate’ is arbitrary and illegal. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in B. Murali Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. 7. Learned standing counsel submits that the petitioner has not even filed any application and therefore, he has no cause of action to file this writ petition. 8. In the writ affidavit it is specifically stated by the petitioner that the respondents have not entertained his application on the ground of not enclosing ‘No Objection Certificate’. 9. The proposition of law is well settled that the building permission application cannot be refused on the ground of not enclosing the ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the Collector vide the decisions of this Court in District Collector Vs. Krishna Mohan asnd Hyderabad Potteries Private Ltd., Vs. District Collector. 10. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the building permission application of the petitioner without insisting ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 19th August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 17893 OF 2008 19th August, 2008.