IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8005 of 2008 Between: 1. Ravindra Kumar Gupta S/o.Satyanarayana Gupta, 21-7-817, Ghansibazar, Hyderabad. 2. Usha Gupta W/o.Ravindra Gupta, 21-7-817, Ghansibazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 1st floor M.C.H. Complex, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2.The Chairman, Heritage Conservation Committee, HUDA, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3.The Director, House Numbering Cell, Officer on Special Duty – Charminar Pedestrianisation Project, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 4.The Assistant Town Planner, Circle No.II Sardar Mahal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare that the inaction of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against to the principles of natural justice and against Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, and to direct them to expedite the prompt action in granting sanction to the plan of the building of the petitioner in the interest of the justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.BANDI.VARAPRASADA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4: MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.M. DHANUMJAYA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R : This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are two in number, assailing the inaction of the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-1st respondent in considering the application filed by them seeking permission for demolition of the existing building and for construction of a new building in the premises owned by them. 2. 1st petitioner has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is stated in the affidavit that their building has become unfit for inhabitation and therefore, it needs immediate demolition. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavits. It is the case of the 1st respondent that a letter has been addressed to the 2nd respondent on 29.06.2007 to inspect the site and give opinion as to whether the building in question can be demolished and dismantled for the purpose of construction of a new building. The response from the 2nd respondent is awaited and therefore, the application of the petitioners is kept under consideration. 4. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the building in question is not notified as a heritage building. Para.9 of the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent needs to be noted and it is thus: “9. In reply to the averments made in paras.10 & 11 of the affidavit it is submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has notified the Heritage Buildings in Hyderabad City vide G.O.Ms.No.102, MA, dated 23.03.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.185 MA dated 22.04.2006. The premises bearing Nos.21-7-817 to 819 Ghansi Bazar is not notified as a Heritage Building in the said G.Os. It is submitted that as on date the premises in question are not notified as a heritage building. Hence, matter does not fall in the purview of Heritage Conservation Committee and HUDA.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. The reason for the 1st respondent withholding the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission for demolition is that the 2nd respondent has not responded to the letter dated 29.06.2007. It is clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent that the building in question is not notified as a heritage building. Such is the situation, there cannot be any impediment for the 1st respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and Rules framed there under. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:10th June, 2008. CS ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 1st floor M.C.H. Complex, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2.The Chairman, Heritage Conservation Committee, HUDA, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3.The Director, House Numbering Cell, Officer on Special Duty – Charminar Pedestrianisation Project, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 4.The Assistant Town Planner, Circle No.II Sardar Mahal, Hyderabad. 5.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}