HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 20690 OF 2010. DATED 24TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Md.Mohiuddin …Petitioner and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. By its Commisjsioner, BRKR Ghavan, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 20690 OF 2010. ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Flat No. G.12, Mughal Mascot Apartments with municipal H.No.11-4-637/G.12, situate at A.C. Guards, Hyderabad, having purchased the same by way of a registered sale deed dated 17.5.2006 vide document No. 2653 of 2006 from his predecessor Mrs. Yasmeen Mubeen. He states that since the date of purchase, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property without any interference of any others. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner was issued notices dated 18.3.2010 and 13.08.2010 under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, by the third respondent stating that he has made constructions in the area not covered by the sanctioned plan and converted the parking space into stilt ﬂoor for the purpose of residential ﬂats other than parking and therefore he was directed to demolish the same within three days, failing which the respondent authorities would demolish the same at the cost the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents without issuing preliminary show cause notice as contemplated under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and without aﬀording an opportunity of submitting reply to the said notice, straight away issued ﬁnal notice under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, for removal of the alleged unauthorized constructions. Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation fairly conceded that the respondent authorities without issuing preliminary show cause notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, straight away issued final notice under Section 636 of the Act and same is unsustainable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Standing Counsel agreed to dispose of the Writ Petition setting aside the ﬁnal notice No.UC/637/11/2010, dated 13.8.2010, issued by the third respondent under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The respondents- Municipal Corporation is granted liberty to issue preliminary notice as contemplated under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and after considering the reply to be submitted by the petitioner to the said preliminary show cause notice, pass ﬁnal orders, in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------- JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 24T H AUGUST, 2010. Msnr.