HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 18887 of 2009 DATED: 09.09.2009 Between: Shirish D Shah and two others .. Petitioners And 1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyd. 2. The Addl. Commissioner, GHMC .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioners claim to have purchased residential flats constructed in house bearing H. No.1-8-54/1, situated at Lock & Rock Colony, Prendergast Road, Secunderabad, under separate registered sale deeds dated 05.08.2002. They state that the total land area of the premises in question is 362.00 Sq. yards and that the entire cellar portion is earmarked for parking except the area where parking of vehicles is not possible. While so, the petitioners state that they constructed a small room for Watchman admeasuring 6’ x 8’ in the area where parking of the vehicles is not possible. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the 1st respondent-Commissioner, GHMC, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, has issued the impugned final notice dated 02.09.2009 directly under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, directing them to remove the unauthorized construction within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is ample place left for parking, and there is no need to demolish the room constructed in the cellar portion, which was constructed for Watchman, and prayed that the impugned Notice may be quashed, and more so when the same is in the nature of a final order, not preceded by any show cause notice. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. This Court, while disposing of a contempt case in C.C. No.101 of 1996, taken up suo motu, by order dated 28.02.1996, held that steps be taken by the respondents immediately for creation of parking areas within the premises of the buildings, with a view to reduce the traffic congestion, which is taking place on account of parking of vehicles on the roads. Further, a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ appeal in W.A. No. 2130 of 2005, by order dated 21.02.2006 held that the drive undertaken by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to remove the illegal constructions made in the cellars and sub-cellars shall continue unabated. It also further held that a notice be given to the owner of the building to voluntarily remove the illegal constructions and put the cellar and sub-cellar to the same use for which they were constructed. That if the owners fail to take remedial measures, then the competent authority shall ensure that the illegal constructions are removed by using all legally permissive measures, including force. The Government, upon considering the aforesaid orders, while framing scheme for regularization of unauthorized/illegal constructions, has made negative provision prohibiting regularization of the constructions made in the cellar portion. According to the own admission of the petitioners, they made construction of the room in the cellar portion, which is meant for parking area, and since constructions in the cellar portion of the building are not permissible, the contention of the petitioner that since there is ample space left for parking and as such there is no need to demolish the room constructed in the cellar portion of the building for Watchman, cannot be accepted. Hence, I see no merits in this writ petition and same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners themselves will remove the unauthorized constructions made in the cellar portion of residential flats in H.No.1-8-54/1 situated at Lock & Rock Colony, Prendergast Road, Secunderabad, and sought some time for removal. Considering the request, the petitioners are granted three months’ time to remove the illegal constructions. It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to remove the unauthorized constructions within the stipulated time, then the officials of the respondent-Corporation, are at liberty to get the same removed at the cost of the petitioners. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 09.09.2009 bcj