IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13244 of 2009 Between: Vangala Jyothsna W/o. Srinivasa Reddy R/o. H.No.9-7-393/1, East Maruthi Nagar, Champapet, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, L.B.Nagar Circle, Hyderabad. 2 P. Narayannamma W/o. P. Ram Reddy R/o. H.No.9-7-335, East Maruthi Nagar, Champapet, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. .....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 appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice issued under Sec.636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 bearing L.R.No.UC/TP/01/C3/LB/2009 dated 01.07.2009 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently set aside the same by directing the 1st respondent to consider the objections submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notie dated 19.06.2009 issued under Sec. 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents : Sri R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.13244 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein was issued a show-cause notice dated 19.06.2009 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, ‘HMC Act, 1955’) alleging that the petitioner had illegally and unauthorizedly erected a gate and ramp at House No.9-7- 393/1, East Maruthi Nagar, Champapet, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, and calling upon her to show-cause as to why the said gate should not be removed. Thereafter, the impugned notice dated 1.7.2009 under Section 636 of HMC Act, 1955, came to be passed directing removal of the above said constructions stating that the petitioner had failed to submit her explanation to the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the said notice under Section 636 of HMC Act, 1955, dated 1.7.2009, the present writ petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in response to the show-cause notice dated 19.6.2009 the petitioner submitted his explanation on 25.6.2009 itself. The material placed before this Court shows that the explanation got issued by the petitioner through his advocate Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy was received in the office of the 1st respondent on 26.6.2009. In the circumstances, the respondents are bound to consider the said explanation before passing the order under Section 636 of the HMC Act, 1955. Since the impugned notice was admittedly issued without considering the explanation of the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 1.7.2009 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent consider the petitioner’s explanation dated 25/26-06-2009 and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 03.07.2009 gbs