IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.24719 of 2006 Between: Syed Zaheer Ahmed, s/o Syed Ahmed Sab, r/o H.No.8-4-544/S/18, Sultannagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tankbund, Hyderabad represented by its Commissioner. 2 The Assistant City Planner (Circle V), The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the Notice No.4620/ACP/C5/MCH/2006 dt.22-11-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent as contrary to law, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notice, dated 22.11.2006 issued by respondent No.2. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Kodandarama Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Notice, dated 15.11.2006, under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued with the following allegations: “You are (sic have) constructed the rooms and compound wall unauthorisedly without obtaining any permission from the MCH and the construction is violating the G.O.Ms.No.86, MA dt. 3.3.2006.” In reply to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his representation on 20.11.2006 wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is not carrying on any construction in the said premises; that one Mohd. Ghouse made a complaint before the first respondent with false allegation stating that the petitioner is carrying on the construction work and that without proper enquiry, the said notice was given. Purporting to consider the said reply, the respondents issued the following order: “You are (sic have) constructed the room and compound wall unauthorisedly without obtaining any permission from the MCH and the construction is violating the G.O.Ms.No.86 MA dt. 3.3.2006 and your reply to the notice u/S.452 HMC Act dt. 15.11.2006 is rejected.” At the hearing, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order shows the non-application of mind on the part of the respondents, inasmuch as while the petitioner gave his reply on 20.11.2006, the impugned order had shown the petitioners reply date as 15.11.2006. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel but I am not inclined to accept the same because the above reproduced portion of the order shows that reference to the petitioner’s reply was to notice, dated 15.11.2006 issued under Section 452 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not raised any construction, but his predecessor in interest raised a structure, which is intended for providing shelter to the watchman. Under the provisions of the Act, every construction irrespective of its nature of use requires permission. If the petitioner or his predecessor in interest raised any structure including a shed for watchman without permission, the respondents are liable to take action in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the grievance of the petitioner against the impugned order has no legal basis. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. This order does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the respondents for getting appropriate permission. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner (Circle V), The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 2 CD copies