THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4410 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was accorded permission by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 13-06-2007 to make construction in the premises bearing No.8-2-317/1, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. She has also obtained an order dated 25-09-2009, through which, certain unauthorized construction was regularized. Her immediate neighbour, the 4th respondent herein, appears to have submitted a complaint to the Corporation, stating that the petitioner obtained permission by misrepresenting certain facts. The 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 15-02-2011, under Sections 450, 452, 461 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’), requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the order dated 25-09-2009, passed in her favour, be not cancelled. The petitioner challenges the same. Heard Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dr.Y. Padmavathi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, and Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The petitioner has not only obtained permission for construction, but has also completed the construction of three lower levels, two cellars and four upper floors. Since the construction made by her was, in deviation of the sanctioned plan, she submitted an application for regularization, under G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31-12- 2007. The Corporation has issued proceedings dated 25-09-2009, regularizing the unauthorized construction. It appears that the 4th respondent submitted a complaint, stating that the unauthorized construction was made by the petitioner, after the cut of date, i.e. 31-12-2007. In the light of that complaint, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned show cause notice, requiring the petitioner to explain, as to why the proceedings dated 25-09-2009 be not cancelled. This Court can interfere with the show cause notice, only when it is issued by an authority, not vested with the power, and that it is not provided for, under law. It is not the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent does not have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. She can submit her explanation to the show cause notice, and approach this Court, if any orders, adverse to her interests, are passed. The writ petition is premature, and not maintainable in law, against a show cause notice. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit her explanation to the impugned show cause notice, within two weeks from today. In case the 2nd respondent passes any order, in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice, adverse to the interests of the petitioner, no further action shall be taken against the premises, referred to above, for a period of two weeks, from the date of service of such order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25-02-2011. KO