THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.18009 of 2000 Date: 18.01.2008 Between: 1. Suresh Chandra Rathi and others ……PETITIONER(S) a n d 1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad at Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad and others ……RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.18009 of 2000 ORDER: Petitioners, after obtaining permission to demolish and reconstruct the buildings as per the plan submitted, were proceeding with the construction of the buildings. In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued a notice under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (the Act) directing the petitioners to show cause within 10 days as to why the permit given to them for construction of the buildings should not be cancelled with a further direction that they should not proceed with the construction of the buildings till the reply is submitted. Questioning the said show cause notice, petitioners filed this writ petition. 2. A learned Judge while admitting the writ petition on 25.09.2000 granted interim suspension of the impugned notice till 10.10.2000 and by the order dated 20.10.2000 the interim suspension was extended. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporation. 4. During the course of arguments, the learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporation stated that the petitioners, after obtaining the order of suspension, completed the construction of buildings. Normally, I would not have interfered with the show cause notice in the writ petition. But, inasmuch as the writ petition is already admitted and since it is stated that the construction of the buildings is already completed, I do not wish to dismiss the petition on the ground that the writ petition on a show cause notice cannot be admitted that too after having heard both the parties on merits. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that since the petitioners did not obtain permission by misrepresenting any facts and since the petitioners were asked to stop construction on the basis of a letter of the District Collector, Hyderabad, claiming that the land, over which the buildings were constructed, belongs to Government, the first respondent has no power under Section 450 of the Act to cancel the licence issued. He also relied on HYDERABAD POTTERIES PVT. LTD. v. COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD DISTRICT[1] and contended that the entries in the Town Survey Land Record are not conclusive. The contention of the learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporation is that since the District Collector, Hyderabad, is claiming that the land belongs to Government, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice. 6. Section 450 of the Act reads: “Power of Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant:- If at any time after permission to proceed with any building or work has been given, the Commissioner is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Section 428 or 433 or if the further information if any, furnished, he may cancel such permission and any work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without his permission.” From the said provision, it is clear that the power under that Section can be exercised only if any misrepresentation was made or fraudulent statement was given by the person who sought the permission. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners made any misrepresentation. When no misrepresentation is made and when prima facie there is material to show that the petitioners have proceeded with the construction of the buildings on the site where there are old structures, the provisions of Section 450 of the Act cannot be invoked by the first respondent for canceling the licence already issued. 7. Hence, the petition is allowed and the notice impugned is quashed granting liberty to the respondents to proceed as per law if they are aggrieved by the action of the petitioners in making the constructions. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. -------------- 18.01.2008 Cvrk [1] 2001 (3) ALT 200