HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No: 16121 of 2009 MONDAY THE 10TH DAY OF AUGST, 2009 Between: T.Sudheer Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, G.H.M.C., Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTs O R D E R : The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, are taking steps to demolish the existing structures in the 2nd floor of the petitioner’s property bearing H.No.9-1-47/48/1A situated at SD Road, Secunderabad. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. On 07.08.2009, when the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel took time to get instructions. Today, when the matter is called, the learned Standing Counsel has produced the relevant file before this Court, and on instructions, submitted that the petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the premises in question, made a representation dated 22.05.2009 to the respondents-Corporation seeking permission to make some constructions with Tin shed surrounding with brick walls on the 2nd floor of the premises in question by replacing the existing fiber sheets. On receipt of the representation, he was orally instructed by the authorities to go ahead with the construction since it is only a shed. While he was making constructions, on 15.7.2009, one T.Surya Kiran made a complaint to the Chief City Planner complaining that the petitioner was making some unauthorized constructions on the 2nd floor of the premises in question, and to evidence the same, he took 35 Nos. of photographs of the structures. Based on the complaint, on the same day, the 1st respondent- Commissioner issued Notice under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipalities Act, 1955 indicating that the petitioner was unauthorizedly proceeding with the construction of shed on the terrace over the ground and first floors at the premises bearing No.9-1-47 without obtaining prior building permission from the G.H.M.C. and directed him to remove those constructions within 24 hours, failing which, the same would be removed by the Corporation itself. Subsequently, the authorities of the Corporation demolished some portion of the structures on 16.07.2009. Then, the petitioner made a representation dated 18.07.2009 to the Minister for Municipal Administration, seeking permission for reconstruction of the damaged structures on the 2nd floor from the authorities of the Corporation, and the Minister concerned made an endorsement on his representation. Then, the Assistant City Planner, G.H.M.C. by his letter dated 30.07.2009, rejected the petitioner’s representation dated 18.07.2009 holding as under: “With reference to the above cited, your building application has been examined in detail under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.86 MA, dated 03.03.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.623 MA dated 01.12.2006 for the proposed shed at the 2nd floor over the existing building consisting of ground, mezzanine, first floor at Premises No.9-1- 47/48/A situated at S.D.Road, Secunderabad and is in violation in respect of alround open spaces, etc. Moreover, the proposals are not submitted as per the building bye-laws of 1981 under (4). Hence, the same is rejected.” The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not questioned the above order of rejection in this writ petition. He further submitted that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was not submitted as per Section 4 of Bye-laws of 1981, however if the petitioner intends to make any further constructions, he has to make proper application as per Section (4) of Bye-laws of 1981, and the same will be considered by the respondents. The factual aspects of the matter are not in dispute. A careful analysis of the entire material placed before this Court reveals that the application dated 18.07.2009 made by the petitioner seeking permission for reconstruction of the damaged structures on the 2nd floor of the premises in question was rejected by the Assistant City Planner on the ground that it was not submitted as per Section 4 of the Bye-laws of 1981. However, having regard to the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that if the petitioner intends to carry out repairs on the existing structures, in the premises in question, he may file proper application as per Section (4) of the Bye-laws of 1981, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The petitioner is directed to make proper application to the respondent-Corporation, in accordance with Section 4 of the Bye-laws of 1981, and along with it, he shall furnish a copy of the order of rejection dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. On such application being filed by the petitioner, the respondent- Corporation is at liberty to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not make any constructions in the premises in question unless and until he obtains valid permission from the Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. 10th August, 2009. bcj