THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.34401 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent in initiating the proceedings bearing Notice No.BA 70/2010/G2, dated 05.12.2011 under Sections 452 (1) & (2) and 461 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct the respondent not to demolish the existing constructions made by the petitioner in Door No.1-5-564/E in Survey No. 953/1A, Balaji Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District 2. The petitioner is the owner of the house bearing D.No.1-5-564/E in survey No.953/1A, Balaji Colony, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. Thereafter, on the applications made by the petitioner seeking permission to construct stilt + two floors building for residential purpose, the respondent Corporation granted permission vide proceedings, dated 13.09.2010. While the matter stood thus, impugned proceedings were issued by the respondent Corporation directing the petitioner to remove the additional floors, which were constructed without obtaining any permission from the respondent. The petitioner submitted an application on 09.12.2011 to the respondent Corporation explaining the circumstances under which some constructions were made contrary to the sanctioned plan. But, till date no action has been taken. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 05.12.2011, the petitioner gave explanation on 09.12.2011, but no action has been taken till now; that the petitioner is also taking steps to make an application under B.R.S.; and hence, he prays to issue a direction to the respondent not to demolish the building in question. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner constructed some floors without obtaining any permission from the Municipality; that there are certain deviations as against the sanctioned plan in making the constructions and that therefore, appropriate decision would be taken in pursuance of the impugned notice and the explanation submitted by the petitioner and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. The allegation is that the petitioner had not obtained permission for construction of some floors on the subject building. Since there are some deviations as against the sanctioned plan, the impugned notice was issued. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner seems to have given an explanation on 09.12.2011, within the time prescribed. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by the respondent – Municipality in accordance with law in the matter duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the impugned notice duly considering the explanation of the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till a decision is taken and an order is passed, the building in question of the petitioner shall not be demolished. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J DECEMBER 28, 2011 Note: Communicate operative portion of the order by wire at party’s cost. (B/o) YVL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.34401 OF 2011 December 28, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Dated: 28.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.34401 OF 2011 Between: V.Bhaskara Naidu ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati. ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: