THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.24485 and 24486 of 2011 Dated 30th August, 2011 Between: Feroz Ali Jasani …Petitioner (W.P.No.24485 of 2011) And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, rep.by its Commissioner and another …Respondents (W.P.No.24485 of 2011) Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Krishna Suman For Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for respondents: Sri C.Damodar Reddy The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed questioning the separate, but identical notices purported to have been issued under Sections 452(2) and 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Sri Krishna Suman, learned counsel, representing Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned notices are liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the respondents have committed serious procedural illegality by combining the notices under both the provisions, namely, Sections 452 and 636 of the Act. After hearing Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC representing the respondents, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Under the Act, the Corporation has to first issue show-cause notice under Section 452(1) of the Act and under sub-section (2), if the person to whom such show- cause notice is issued fails to show sufficient cause, the Commissioner may alter or pull down the structure. Under Section 636 of the Act, before taking such action, a written notice shall be given to the owner or the person who was found carrying out the work requiring him to remove or pull down the structure. If the said direction is not carried out within the prescribed time, the Commissioner may get the said structure removed. The sequence in which the above-mentioned procedure is laid down does not permit the respondents to issue notices under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act simultaneously. The impugned notice does not even refer to the earlier notice, if any, issued under Section 452 (1) of the Act. As demolition of a structure results in serious consequences to its owner, the respondents are expected to follow the statutory procedure scrupulously. Indeed, it is the case of the petitioners that the notices were issued ignoring the fact that the petitioners have been running their businesses in the spaces earmarked for the said purposes in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that no part of the area earmarked for parking is being used for this purpose. In the light of this plea of the petitioners, it is necessary for the respondents to issue notice as required under Section 452(1) of the Act before proceeding with further action. In this view of the matter, the impugned notices are set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the respondents to issue fresh notices under Section 452(1) of the Act and consider the objections, if any, filed to such notices before taking recourse to the provisions of Sections 452(2) and 636 of the Act. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, W.P.M.P.Nos.30074 and 30039 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th August, 2011 VGB