THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.30415 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No.7-3-674 to 680, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad. He is said to have got the property in a partition, between himself and his brothers, through decree passed in O.S.No.116 of 1968 by the Court of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The 2nd petitioner, wife of the 1st petitioner, informed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, in the year 2003, that the building has become dilapidated and is posing danger to the inmates. The 1st respondent issued notice dated 06-11-2003, under Section 459 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), requiring the 2nd petitioner to vacate the portion, paving the way for demolition. The tenant filed W.P.No.29740 of 2003, and obtained stay of the notice. The writ petition was disposed of, on 28-09-2004, directing the Municipal Corporation to get the premises inspected, in the presence of the tenant, and to take necessary action, if warranted, under Section 459 of the Act. However, before any tangible steps could be taken, a portion of the building is said to have collapsed on 23-08-2008. The remaining portion was demolished by the Corporation, on the next day. The 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 09-11-2010, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, towards the expenditure incurred by the Corporation for demolition of the dilapidated structures, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioners challenge the same. Heard Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The root cause for the impugned notice is a representation submitted by the petitioners, claiming compensation, and insisting that the Corporation shall construct a compound wall, provide a gate; construct footpath; to repair sewer line; to grant exemption of tax, etc., for the premises in question. While dealing with that application, the 2nd respondent took the view that it is only when the 2nd petitioner submitted a representation, that a notice under Section 459 of the Act was issued, and before further steps could be taken, as indicated in W.P.No.29740 of 2003, the building collapsed, due to heavy rains. While denying any liability on the part of the Corporation, by stating those reasons, the 2nd respondent observed that the remaining portion of the building was removed by the Corporation, and in the process, it has incurred Rs.3 lakhs, of expenditure. It is not in dispute that the building was in a dilapidated condition, and the 2nd petitioner made a request to the respondents to arrange for removal of the building. It appears that the effort of the 2nd respondent was more, to get rid of the tenant, than to seek enforcement of law. If she or her family members were living in the building, which was very old and dilapidated, they will certainly vacate the premises, and get it pulled down. Be that as it may, the Corporation acted on the representation, and issued notice under Section 459 of the Act. When it was challenged by the tenant, this Court took the view that notice ought to have been issued to her, before the Corporation initiated steps. Even according to the respondents, the building collapsed, due to heavy rains. It is just ununderstandable as to how the petitioners can require the Corporation to construct compound wall, arrange gate, and confer other benefits on them. The demand made by the petitioners was totally untenable in law. The impugned notice can be divided into two parts, viz., a) rejection of the representation made by the petitioners, and b) demand made by the Corporation, for recovery of demolition charges. The first part of it, was already held to be untenable. Coming to the second aspect, the notice is bereft of any details, as to the nature of action taken by the Corporation, and the item-wise expenditure incurred therefor. This is essential, because, one must know, whether the steps taken by the Corporation were in discharge of their statutory obligation, or as a commercial venture, undertaken at the instance of the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned notice, and holding that, a) the petitioners cannot insist on the facilities mentioned in their representation dated 06-01-2009, and b) in case the Corporation intends to issue any independent notice, it shall be under obligation to mention the nature of steps taken by it; relevant provisions of law, governing the steps, and the item- wise expenditure incurred therefor. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.31-01-2011. KO