IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28374 of 2008 Between: Smt. V.Raja Rajeswari, W/o.V.Murali Krishna, R/o. 8-2-293/174/A/16, Road No.14, B.N.Reddy Clony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Dy.Commissioner, Alwal cirlce, G.H.M.C. at Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the notice issued by the respondents dated 17-12-2008 under Sec.452 of H.M.C. Act, 1955 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents and their staff not to take any coercive steps including demolition of the structures of the petitioners property being plot No.102 admeasuring 116.66 sq.yards or equivalent to 97.52 sq.meters in Sy.Nos.157 and 158 situated at Raghava Kalyan estates in Block No.9 Ward No.5 of Yapral (V) Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri (M) Ranga Reddy District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.28374 of 2008 ORDER: 1 Questioning the show cause notice dated 17.12.2008 issued under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition. 2 Heard both sides. 3 Having regard to the fact that the said notice, which is impugned in this Writ Petition is only a show cause notice, it is always open to the petitioner to offer his detailed explanation. Instead of doing so, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition stating that even if there are any deviations, since he has already given a representation as early as on 14.07.2008 itself, seeking regularization of the said unauthorized constructions, the authorities, instead of disposing of the said representation and authorize the constructions, issued the impugned notice. 4 In view of the contention raised by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission, without going into the merits of the case, such as whether the construction made by the petitioner is authorized or unauthorized one, inasmuch as the notice impugned in this Writ Petition is only a show cause notice, the petitioner can as well submit his explanation thereto and it is open to the respondent authorities to dispose of the same in accordance with law. 5 In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to offer his explanation to the show cause notice dated 17.12.2008 within a period of one week from today and the respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the respondent authorities about the building regularization application presented on 14.07.2008. Till the explanation presented by the petitioner is considered, no coercive steps, such as, demolition shall be undertaken by the respondents. No order as to costs. --------------------- 26.12.2008 SRI T.G.K, J. kvsn