THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.33639 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent in issuing proceedings bearing Notice No.10/2010/G2-T.P.B.O.-2, dated 05.12.2011, under Sections 636 & 452 (1) & (2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct the respondent not to demolish the existing constructions made by the petitioners in Door No.9-3-141 in Survey No. 2441 situated at Porla Veedhi, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. The petitioners are said to be the owners of land in Door No.9-3-141 in Survey No.2441 situated at Porla Veedhi, Tirupati. They submitted an application on 18.11.2010 before the respondent seeking permission to construct a stilt+two-floors building for residential purpose and permission was granted, vide proceedings dated 07.04.2010. While the matter stood thus, the impugned proceedings were issued by the respondent directing the petitioners to remove the unauthorized constructions pointed out in the said notice within 7 days from the date of receipt thereof. The petitioners submitted explanation on 15.12.2011 to the respondent 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 petitioners gave explanation on 15.12.2011, but no action has been taken till now; that therefore, the petitioners are also taking steps to make an application under Building Regularisation Scheme; 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 petitioners constructed additional floors without obtaining any sanction from the Municipality; that there are certain deviations from the sanctioned plan in making the constructions and that therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken in pursuance of the impugned notice along with the explanation submitted by the petitioners and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. The allegation is that the petitioners have not obtained permission for construction of additional floors on the subject land. Since there are some deviations from the sanctioned plan, the impugned notice was issued. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioners seem to have given an explanation on 15.12.2011, within the time prescribed. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by the respondent – Municipality in accordance with law, duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to take appropriate decision on the impugned notice duly considering the explanation of the petitioners, 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 petitioners shall not be demolished. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Date: 21.12.2011 Note: Issue operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.33639 OF 2011 December 21, 2011 JSU