IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13739 of 2008 Between: Madina Education & Welfare Society, Rep by its Secretary K.M. Arifuddin, S/o. K.M. Qmaruddin aged about 63 years, R/o. H.No. 3-6-126, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Municipal Administration, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to act according to law, declaring the action of the respondent insisting NOC along with application for building permission as arbitrary illegal, void, consequently direct the respondents to grant bearing No. 8-1-297/2/E/11, Plot No. 42 & 42 and No. 8-1-297/2, Admeasuring 466.66 square Yards situated at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad without insisting upon the NOC from the state Govt and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 13739 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Madina Education and Welfare Society, represented by its Secretary K.M. Arifuddin assailing the action of the respondents in not receiving the building permission application. 2. The petitioner is owner of 546.66 square yards comprising House No. 8-1-297/E/11 situated at Shaikpet, known as Falcon Valley, Hyderabad. When the petitioner society approached the 2nd Respondent with an application seeking permission to put up a building on the site owned by it, the 2nd Respondent refused to entertain the application and insisted ‘No Objection Certificate’. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner’s society. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in insisting for NOC is arbitrary and illegal. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in B.Murali Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1]. 5. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not even filed an application and therefore, he has no cause of action to file the writ petition. 6. In the writ affidavit it is stated that when the petitioner society approached the 2nd Respondent with building permission application, its application is not entertain on the ground of not enclosing NOC. It is well settled that the authorities refusing to receive the building application on the ground that ‘No Objection Certificate’ obtained from the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, had not been enclosed to the building application, cannot be sustained vide the decision of this Court in District Collector, Hyderabad Vs. N.Krishna Mohan[2] and Hyderabad Potteries Private Ltd., Vs. District Collector, Hyderabad[3]. 7. In view of the settled proposition of law, the 2nd Respondent cannot insist the petitioner to enclose NOC. To building permission application. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the building permission application of the petitioner without insisting for NOC from the District Collector, No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 30th June, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 13739 OF 2008 30th June,2008. [1] 2006 (6) ALT 198 [2] 2000(3) ALT 525 [3] 2001(3) ALT 200