HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No. 19900 of 2010 Date : 13-08-2010 Between: T.Shakunthala …Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep.by its Commissioner Tank Bund, Hyderabad & another …Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No. 19900 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the premises bearing No.18-7-212/929/8, Talabkatta, Mir-Jumla, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 04.08.2010 alleging that the petitioner had unauthorisedly constructed ground + first floor by encroaching upon Jahangir Nagar Nala and that in spite of the directions by this Court in W.P.No.7085 of 2008, she had failed to submit her explanation within the stipulated period and therefore, calling upon the petitioner to handover the affected portion of the premises within 7 days so as to avoid the obstruction in the free flow of water in the nala. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material available on record shows that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.7085 of 2008 challenging the notice dated 24.03.2008 issued by the Corporation. Having taken note of the fact that the said notice was issued under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 06.11.2009 with directions as under: “ The writ petition is disposed of directing that a) It shall be open to the petitioner to submit explanation within a period of ten (10) days from today; b) On receipt of the explanation, the respondents shall pass final orders within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter; and c) Till such time, the respondents shall not demolish the structures in question.” Pursuant thereto, the impugned notice dated 04.08.2010 came to be issued observing that the petitioner failed to submit her explanation within the period of ten days fixed by this Court in W.P.No.7085 of 2008. However, it is contended by the petitioner that even prior to the disposal of W.P.No.7085 of 2008, she had submitted her explanation on 27.03.2008 in response to the show cause notice dated 24.03.2008 and therefore, the respondents were not justified in issuing the impugned notice without considering her explanation dated 27.03.2008. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner’s explanation dated 27.03.2008 was received in the office of the respondents. In the circumstances, the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner’s explanation before issuing the impugned notice dated 04.08.2010. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 04.08.2010 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the petitioner’s explanting dated 27.03.2008. No costs. ___________ 13-8-2010 Mjl/*