IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2966 of 2009 Between: 1 Smt. T. Purnima W/o. Subba Rao R/o. H.No.1-30-309, Kanajiguda Telecom Colony, R.R. District. 2 K. Nageshwar Rao S/o. Adivaiah R/o. H.N. 1-5-362, Surya Nagar Colony Old Alwal, R.R. District. 3 K. Venkaiamma W/o. K. Nageshwar Rao R/o. H.No. 1-5-362, Surya Nagar Colony Old Alwal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Alwal Circle, R.R. District. 2 The Town Planning Officer, GHMC Alwal Circle, R.R. District. .....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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents authorities in forcibly stopping the construction activities being carried on by the petitioner on Plot Nos.64 forming part of sy.No.38 and 39 situated at Suryanagar, Alwal Village, Malkajgiri, R.R.District and threatening to demolish the structures as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Section 437 of the GHMC Act, 1955 as amended by Act No.14 of 2008, and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith accord permission in pursuance of the application dated 3-11-2008, and to grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MEKALASRINIVAS YADAV Counsel for the Respondents.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with their construction activities and threatening them to demolish the structures constructed over plot No.64 forming part of Sy No.39 situated at Suryanagar, Alwal Village, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of part of plot No.64 having purchased the same under different registered sale deeds dated 26.2.2008 and the same are included in the layout regularized by the respondent corporation vide proceedings dated 3.10.2008. While so, with an intention to construct a residential house, they approached the respondent authorities and submitted an application on 3.11.2008 along with necessary plans and complied with all the required formalities and also paid necessary amounts for according permission. But since the respondent has not considered the plan within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application as per Section 428 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, they have submitted individual notices on 5.12.2008 before the 1st respondent and since no orders have been passed on their application, they proceeded with the construction under deemed permission as per the plan submitted by them. While so, the respondent authorities came to the premises on 5.2.2009 and threatened to stop the construction work immediately or else to demolish the same without any notice and hence this writ petition. On instructions, the learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation submits that the petitioners, without even waiting for the completion of the statutory period meant for considering their applications, started constructions in deviation to the plan submitted by them and, therefore, the Corporation has already issued notices to them indicating the deviations and after considering the explanations to be submitted by the petitioners, they will take necessary action. In that view of the matter, since the respondent Corporation has already issued notices to the petitioners indicating the deviations in their constructions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the explanations to be submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the receipt of the notices, said to have been issued by the respondents, and take necessary action. N.V.RAMANA, DT.24.2.2009 msv