THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION Nos.18318 & 12784 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: As both the writ petitions are inter-connected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner-Smt. P. Sarada, filed W.P. No.18318 of 2010, stating that she is the absolute owner of the House bearing No.8-3-966/12, Nagarjuna Nagar, Sreenagar Colony, Hyderabad and that she has let out the said property to the third respondent- Smt.Jhansi Lakshmi, for residential purpose only. That the third respondent, without her knowledge, consent and approval, illegally and in violation of the sanctioned plan, raised constructions within the premises of the property, and running a school under the name and style of “Sivani High School”. That the third respondent, fabricated the rental deed and applied and obtained temporary licence from the Regional Joint Director, Department of Secondary Education, Hyderabad, to run the said school. Therefore, she lodged a complaint against the third respondent before the Station House Officer, Punjagutta. The Station House Officer, after conducting detailed enquiry, came to the conclusion that the third respondent fabricated the lease deed and detained her. Later, the third respondent was released on bail. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the District Education Officer, Hyderabad, not to issue license to the third respondent to run the school in the property in question and to initiate appropriate action against respondents 3 and 4. She also made a complaint before the first respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, requesting to remove the illegal constructions made by the third respondent in the property in question, and the first respondent after conducting a detailed enquiry, came to the conclusion that there are illegal structures in the property in question and directed respondents 3 and 4 to remove the illegal structures vide the impugned Notice dated 31.05.2010. However, so far the third respondent has not removed the structures. Hence, this writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the first respondent to remove the illegal constructions made by respondents 3 and 4. Questioning the said Notice dated 31.05.2010, issued by the first respondent, directing them to remove the alleged illegal constructions, the School filed W.P.No.12784 of 2010. On 07.06.2010, when W.P. No.12784 of 2010 was taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner-school sought permission of the Court to correct the cause title as by oversight the cause title reflected GHMC as being represented by the Assistant Commissioner, Circle No. V, instead of Circle No. X. This Court accorded permission as prayed for and directed the Registry to carry out necessary corrections. On 28.07.2010, this Court in W.P.No.18318 of 2010 directed to list the matter along with W.P.No.12784 of 2010. Accordingly, both the matters are listed today. Today, when the matters are taken up for admission, the learned counsel appearing for the school submitted that the notice dated 31.05.2010, issued by the first respondent, which is in the nature of a final order, is not served on the School. He submitted that the School is a tenant of the premises, the first respondent before issuing the impugned Notice, ought to have given notice and provided opportunity of hearing, and since the impugned notice, which is in the nature of a final order, is not preceded by any show cause notice and providing opportunity to the School, the submitted that the impugned Notice be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. As the house stands in the name of petitioner in W.P. No. 18318 of 2010, the first respondent issued notice to her. In fact, the said notice, according to the petitioner, was issued at her request as the School made illegal constructions. Though the School claims that it is a lessee of the house in question, it is the specific case of the petitioner that she has leased out the premises for residential purposes only, and that the School had fabricated the lease deed and obtained permission to run the School from the education department authorities. The School being a tenant in the building of the petitioner, cannot resist the removal of the alleged illegal constructions made by them in the building, particularly when the said constructions, according to the petitioner, are made without her knowledge and consent or approval. Since it is the duty of the first respondent to take action against the illegal constructions, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 31.05.2010. At any rate, since it is the case of the School that they are running the School in the building, and that the impugned notice, which is in the nature of a final order, and which was not issued to them, is given effect to, the School will suffer irreparably, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: The impugned notice dated 31.10.2010 issued by the first respondent, shall be treated as a show cause notice. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent is directed to serve a copy of the impugned notice dated 31.10.2010 to the School today itself. The School is at liberty to submit their objections, if any, to the impugned notice, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The School shall not claim any separate notice to be issued to them. Upon the School submitting their objections, if any, to be impugned notice, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, and if it finds that the School has raised any constructions, in contravention of the plan sanctioned to the petitioner, then the first respondent shall ensure removal of such unauthorized/illegal constructions. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 04.08.2010 va