HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.29159 of 2009 Date: December 31, 2009 Between: Dr. Chinta Shyam Kumar, S/o. Dr. CSR Prasada Rao, Hindu, aged 41 years, Doctor by profession, R/o.H.No.29-8-44, Chiluku Durgaiah Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada-2, and another … Petitioner And Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Vijayawada … Respondent Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the demand made by the respondent-Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, vide proceedings bearing No.Rc.G.BPS.No.1509/2008, dated 26-09-2009, demanding an amount of Rs.6,63,280/-, towards penalization charges, for regularization/penalization of the building constructed by them in deviation to the sanctioned plan. 2. It is the case of the petitioners, wife and husband and Doctors by profession, that they are the owners and possessors of the building bearing Door No.29-8-44, situated at Chiluku Durgaiah Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. On the ground that constructions made by them are in deviation to the sanctioned plan, the petitioners have applied for regularization/penalization of such constructions by remitting an amount of Rs.65,000/- vide application No.BPS-1509/2008. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the respondent-Corporation ought to have calculated the penal charges by applying the rates as applicable to residential buildings, but, on the ground that they are running a hospital/clinic in a part of the building, by calculating penal charges at the rates which are applicable to commercial buildings, the respondent-Corporation demanded an amount of Rs.6,63,280/- which, according to them, is not correct and they are not liable to pay the said amount. On receipt of the impugned demand, it is stated that the petitioners have submitted a detailed representation dated 12-10-2009, disputing such demand. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. G. Jhansi, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. 4. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it appears, the dispute is only with regard to quantum of penalization amount payable by the petitioners for regularization of the building constructed by them in deviation to the sanctioned plan. The impugned demand is made pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioners, by applying the rates as applicable to commercial buildings. As much as the petitioners have already submitted a representation, after receipt of the impugned demand from the respondent-Corporation, it is a matter which has to be examined by the respondents, whether the demand made is in conformity with the rates which are notified as per the scheme for regularization of the buildings constructed in deviation to the sanctioned plan. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioners are permitted to file a further detailed representation within a period of four weeks from today giving the details of the rates which are to be charged and the amount payable according to them for regularization of the constructions made in deviation to the sanctioned plan. On filing such representation, the competent authority of the respondent- Corporation shall examine the same, by looking into the contents of the representation already submitted, and the further representation, and pass appropriate orders, giving the details of balance amount payable by the petitioners. Till appropriate orders are passed and communicated to the petitioners, no further steps shall be taken for demolition of the constructions which are subject matter of the application filed by the petitioners. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 31, 2009 MRR