THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.7575 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner was accorded permission by the Commissioner of the then Kukatpally Municipality, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent, for construction of a house vide proceedings, dated 07.11.2006. She was issued a show cause notice, dated 06.02.2007, by the Municipality requiring her to explain as to why the permission granted in her favour should not be cancelled, stating that a suit, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is pending in relation to the plot. The petitioner submitted her explanation stating that the order of temporary injunction granted in that suit was vacated and that her title vis-à-vis the property is not at all in question. Through order, dated 01.03.2007, the 1st respondent revoked the permission. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The only basis on which the 1st respondent proposed to cancel the permission accorded to the petitioner was that the suit filed by the 2nd respondent is pending. The petitioner states that she has enclosed all the copies including the interlocutory orders passed in O.S.No.3159 of 2006. Except stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not found to be satisfactory, the 1st respondent did not assign any reason for revocation of the permission. With the grant of permission, valuable rights are accrued to the petitioner. The A.P. Municipalities Act provides for revocation of the permission, if only there was any misrepresentation on the part of the applicant. It is not even alleged that the petitioner misrepresented any facts. Mere pendency of a suit itself does not enable the 1st respondent to revoke the permission. At any rate, if there exists any disputes between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, they have to abide by the decree that may be passed in the pending suit. The Municipality has hardly anything to do in the matter. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04.06.2010. GJ