HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.9564 of 2011 Date : 25-8-2011 Between : V.N. Subhash Chandra Bose, Sanjeeva Reddynagar, Hyderabad .. Petitioner And The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri L. Ravichander for Sri Milind G. Gokhale Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Dr.Y. Padmavathi, Standing Counsel for GHMC Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Dammalapati Srinivas The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a certiorari to quash the notice issued under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"). The petitioner pleads that he is the owner of flats, namely, G001, G1, G2 and G3, Ground Floor, Pooja Residency, bearing municipal No.7-1-621/427, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. There appear to be serious disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent No.4 on the other, which is an Association comprising the flat owners of the premises in which the petitioner is residing. A civil suit in O.S.No.619/2011 on the file of the learned V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed by the petitioner against respondent No.4 for a perpetual injunction is pending. While so, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notice wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner has unauthorisedly constructed by extending the existing house to the space left for parking purpose and that he has also constructed a room in the said place. While calling upon the petitioner to stop the work, he was asked to submit his reply within seven days, failing which further action will be taken. Alleging that a part of the structure was demolished even before he submitted his representation and without issuing a notice under Section 636 of the Act, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. Respondent No.4 was added as a party to the Writ Petition on its application. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, while denying the allegation of the petitioner that in the sanctioned plan no space is earmarked for parking area, it is averred that an extent of 100 sq.ft. is left for parking area. It is also alleged that the petitioner got registered in his favour an apartment on the fourth floor with 10 sq.yards of undivided share of land through document No.2644/2001 and that this fact shows that the petitioner, with a mala fide intention and in collusion with the developer, has created document for the structures which are not in existence. At the hearing, Sri L.Ravichander, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the court communication bearing No.1973/RTI/ACP-10/GHMC/2011, dated 12-7- 2011 of respondent No.2, wherein, to the query as to whether in the approved plan sanctioned by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) any part of the ground floor is allotted for parking, he has replied that no parking area was earmarked in the ground floor as per the sanctioned plan. While placing heavy reliance on this information furnished by respondent No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed on the above mentioned admission of respondent No.2 as to the absence of parking place in the sanctioned plan in the ground floor. Dr.Y.Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned counsel for the impleaded respondent No.4, opposed the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that an extent of 100 sq.ft is earmarked as parking area in the ground floor and that the petitioner has raised constructions in the said area unauthorisedly. In my opinion, it is premature for this court to render a conclusive finding on the validity or otherwise of the action of the respondents in seeking to proceed against the petitioner for the reason that under the impugned notice, while asking the petitioner to stop the further work, respondent No.2 has called upon him to submit his reply on the allegations made in the said notice. Apprehending demolition of the structure without issuing a notice under Section 636 of the Act, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. As a result of the interim order granted by this court, further action is stalled. Inasmuch as the petitioner is stated to have submitted his objections to the impugned notice, a copy of which is filed by him in this Writ Petition, it is appropriate that respondent No.2 decides on the said notice in the light of the objections raised by the petitioner before seeking to proceed further. Respondent No.2 is therefore directed to put the petitioner and respondent No.4 on notice, hear them personally and adjudicate on the contentious issue as to whether any area is earmarked for parking purpose under the sanctioned plan, and if so, the petitioner has raised any construction thereon. He shall pass a speaking order and communicate the same to both the parties. In the event respondent No.2 passes an order adverse to the petitioner’s interests, he shall not implement the same for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the same by the petitioner, to enable him to avail appropriate legal remedies. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 8-4-2011 as extended by order dated 29-4- 2011, is vacated and WPMP No.11482/2011 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 25-8-2011 AM