IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 403 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/03/2009 in WP NO : 3648 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. N. Laxmi Devi W/o. N.S. Rajeshwar Rao R/o. H.No. 15-8-474, Feel Khana, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by the Commissioner & Special Officer Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR.PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 403 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The Petitioner in W.P. No. 3648 of 2009 is in Appeal aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2009, disposing of the Writ Petition with certain directions. The case of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner is that she is residing in the property bearing Municipal No. 15-8-474 situated at Feelkhana, Hyderabad, admeasuring 65 square yards while her brother was earlier residing in the adjacent house bearing No. 15-8-459. It is stated that there is litigation pending between the Appellant/Writ Petitioner and her brother and that acting at the behest of third parties, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the Respondent herein, initiated action for demolition of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner’s building on the ground that the same was in a dilapidated condition requiring its demolition as per Section 456 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The grievance of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner is that she was not given a proper opportunity by the Respondent-Corporation, inasmuch as a copy of the technical report relied upon by the Corporation was not given to her and she was also denied a hearing after the inspection of the premises. The learned single Judge took note of the fact that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner had been heard in the matter as disclosed by the file which was produced before the learned Judge and that the Respondent-Corporation had relied upon the report submitted by the Chief Engineer, GHMC, who had conducted an inspection of the building on 10.1.2009 and came to the conclusion that the building required to be demolished as per Section 456 of the Act. However, keeping in mind the fact that there was a dispute with regard to the subject property and in the light of the complaint made by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner that she was denied an opportunity, the learned single Judge granted liberty to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner to avail the appellate remedy provided under Section 654 (6) of the Act before the competent Civil Court within a period of one week and directed status-quo to be maintained till that date. The issues sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant with regard to the structural stability of the building cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel seeks to place reliance upon the contrary report dated 23.2.2009 submitted by a Structural Engineer to the effect that the subject building does not require to be demolished. These are matters which, by their very nature, are not amenable to resolution in a Writ Petition, as rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge and the Statute itself provides for an alternative and efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 654(6) of the Act. Unfortunately, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner, instead of availing this statutory remedy, preferred a Writ Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. However, keeping in mind the facts of the case, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner is granted four weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to avail the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 654(6) of the Act. Status-quo obtaining as on today shall continue till the said date. In view of the complaint made by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner that she has not been furnished all the relevant information by the Respondent- Corporation, it is open to the Appellant to make an application seeking all such information, as is required by her, for invoking the appellate remedy and upon such an application being made, the Respondent-Corporation shall furnish such information within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such application. The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 6th July, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb