THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9060 OF 2002 DATED: 10-04-2006 BETWEEN Mohd. Moinudding Ali, S/o. Late Sri Mohd. Ahmed Ali. Occ: Business, R/o. Hyderabad. …PETITIONER AND Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and another. …RESPONDENTS ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent corporation in making markings and attempts to demolish structure raised in premises No.11-4-644 and 645, situated at A.C. Guards, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into a development agreement in respect of the aforementioned property admeasuring 1265 sq. yards vide Development Agreement dated 09.04.1994 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner applied for permission for construction of stilt + upper 5 floors and the permission was granted vide permit No.428/95 under file No.51/EP/4/95 dated 17.05.1995 and thereafter the petitioner constructed the structures as per the sanctioned plan. While so, the respondent straightaway served a final order of demolition under Section 636 of the Act on 04.12.1998 on the petitioner without issuing a show cause notice under Section 452 of the Act with regard to the alleged violations. Against the same, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1666 of 1999 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained interim injunction restraining the respondent corporation from demolishing or interfering with the said premises vide order dated 29.12.1999 in I.A.No.340 of 1999 in the said suit. He further submits that even after the said injunction the officials of the respondent corporation are threatening to demolish the structures. I am of the opinion that having filed a civil suit and obtaining interim injunction the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition as it is not open for the petitioner to pursue parallel proceedings by way of filing a civil suit and by way of approaching this Court. However, with regard to the specific allegation that no show cause notice has been issued under Section 452 of the Act, it is stated in the counter that respondent has issued a show cause notice under Section 452 of the Act on 04.12.1998 and thereafter, the notice under Section 636 of the Act dated 16.04.1999 has been issued calling the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized construction and the petitioner without filing any reply to the said show cause notice approached this Court without any bonafide. I am of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed as the petitioner suppressed the facts and as also he filed a civil suit. However, the respondent is directed to again inspect the premises constructed by the petitioner and issue a specific notice under Section 452 of the Act pointing out the deviations/violations made by the petitioner giving reasonable opportunity for filing his explanation within one week and if any explanation is filed within one week the same may be considered and appropriate orders may be passed. If no such explanation is filed, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action to pull down the unauthorized structures made contrary to the sanction plan without reference to the orders said to have obtained from the Civil Court in the pending suit. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 10, 2006 DSK