IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 7824 of 2002 Between: D.Bhargavi Rain W/o D.Ramesh 6-1-275, Padmaraonagar, Secunderbad-25 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Commissioner, MCH, Hyderabad 2 The Additional commissioner MCH, Secunderabad Division Secunderabad .....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 to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to take immediate steps for the demolitionof the petitioners building bearing old No. 2938- 39, under the new No.7-1-951, 950, 949, 948, 814, 953, 952 situated in Nala Bazar, R.P.Road, Secunderabad and to demolish the same in accordance with law declaring: that the inaction in not taking any steps to demolish the same so far in view of the reports and applications sent by the petitioner and the notice dated.9/07/01 issued by the respondent (Commissioner-MCH) under section 456 of HMC Act to this petitioner in his procdgs No.15/TP/MCH/SD/W7/2001 is highly unjust, improper, contrary, arbitrary to law violative of the fundamental rights and the principles of nature justice and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.S.V.SESHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.7824 of 2002 ORDER The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of building bearing No.2938-39, (New No.7-1-951, 950, 949, 948, 814, 953, 952) situated in Nala Bazar, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. It is stated that the said building was constructed long back during the years 1935-1940 and was in a dilapidated condition. Having made the necessary inspection the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Town Planning Section, Secunderabad Zone issued a notice dated.09-07-2001 under Section.456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955 (for short “The Act”) informing the petitioner that the said building was in a dangerous and dilapidated condition and was likely to collapse at any moment causing danger to the inmates of the building as well as the surrounding buildings and of the public passing through the road on the front side of the building. Accordingly the petitioner was called upon to vacate/repair the dilapidated building immediately. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner gave notices to the occupants of the building to vacate the same and the matter was also informed to the Corporation with a request to take immediate action to pull down the structure. She also expressed her willingness to pay the expenses that may be incurred for demolition of the building. However, the Corporation failed to take any further steps. Aggrieved by the said inaction of the Corporation, the present writ petition has been filed. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the fact that the building is in a dilapidated condition has not been disputed. However, it is stated that the matter was referred to the Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation Sucunderabad Division and after inspection he opined that the ground floor of the building was in stable condition and that the first floor occupied by a tenant for residential purpose, developed cracks and the same required repairs. On the basis of the said opinion a notice dated.09-07-2001 under Section.456 of the Act was served on the petitioner to get the building repaired. Therefore it is for the petitioner to get the building repaired to avoid further damage to the building or to demolish the same on her own. I have heard the learned counsel for the both parties. A perusal of the notice dated.09-07-2001 issued under Section.456 of the Act though shows that the building is in dangerous and dilapidated condition, it is not clear from the said notice that the Corporation proposed demolition of the same. As could be seen from the said notice it appears that the petitioner was required to vacate/repair the building in question to prevent any danger to the inmates of the building. In the circumstances though the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent-Corporation cannot be accepted, having regard to the undisputed fact that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to cause immediate inspection of the building in the presence of the petitioner as well as the occupants of the building within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this Order and thereafter to take appropriate steps on the basis of the inspection report. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. --------------- G.ROHINI,J 18th March 2009 *TSNR