THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22860 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by the notice, dated 22.10.2009, issued by the second respondent under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Through the impugned notice, the petitioner is required to remove the second and other floors constructed by him over the premises bearing No.11-4-708, Red Hills, Hyderabad. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned notice is not preceded by a notice under Section 452 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner asserts that he has not been served with notice under Section 452 of the Act. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court, a copy of the notice, dated 14.10.2009, under that provision. It is stated to have been received by one Sri Mallesh, a watchman of the premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client did not employ any person, by name Mallesh. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner is served with a copy of the notice, dated 14.10.2009, issued under Section 452 of the Act, he can be permitted to submit reply within seven days from today. Hence, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned notice, dated 22.10.2009. It is directed that it shall be open to the petitioner to submit explanation to the notice, dated 14.10.2009, issued under Section 452 of the Act, within seven (7) days from today and thereafter, it shall be competent for the respondents to take further action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.10.2009 kdl