The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition Nos.9560 & 9480 of 2005 Common Order: Since the issue that arises for consideration in these two Writ Petitions is common, they are being disposed of by this Common Order with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. In these two Writ Petitions, the petitioners have questioned the validity of notices issued vide Letter No.TPS/C-5/MCH/2004, dated 23-04-2005, by the first respondent-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), directing them to remove shop Nos.4, 5, 9 to 13, 19 to 22, 28, 29, and 32 to 39 situated at Amrutha Mall in D.No.6-3-1110, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, on the ground that they were unauthorizedly constructed in cellar floor, which is meant for parking vehicles, and the same resulted in the vehicles being parked on the roads, creating lot of traffic congestion, accidents and public nuisance. All the petitioners herein claim to have purchased the abovementioned shops. It is stated in the affidavits, filed in support of the Writ Petitions, that the complex in question has 11,000 square feet parking area in cellar although the actual requirement is only 8000 square feet. It is further stated therein that earlier, when the shops in question were sought to be demolished, petitioners herein and others filed Writ Petition No.18680 of 1996 and batch, which were disposed of by this Court, directing the respondents not to demolish the structures without following the due process of law. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they are bonafide purchasers and are in possession of the shops in question, the impugned demolition notices were issued without giving any show cause notice and opportunity to them. At the stage of admission, on 25-04-2005, this Court granted interim stay of demolition of the shops in question and the said order continued all along. Though the Writ Petitions are of 2005, no counter affidavits have, so far, been filed by the respondents. As per the provisions of the Act, if any construction is made in deviation to the sanctioned plan, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents- Municipal Corporation to issue notice as contemplated under Section 452 of the Act in the first instance and only after hearing the parties thereto, make summary enquiry and issue notice under Section 636 of the Act for its removal. Although no counter-affidavits are filed controverting the plea of the petitioners that show cause notices were not issued to them before issuance of the impugned notices, during the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has clearly conceded the same. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned notices are quashed. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking steps in accordance with law after issuing necessary notices under Section 452 of the Act to the petitioners. No order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 14th December, 2009 lur