THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.7138 of 2009 Dated 02nd August, 2011 Between: Ravikant Shukla …Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri J.Prabhakar Counsel for respondents: Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice bearing No.G-156/9/B/4/7RTI/RC/09, dated 13.03.2009, issued by respondent No.3 under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). At the hearing, Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned notice is devoid of any details as to the alleged deviations and that therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, fairly conceded that the material details as to the alleged deviations have not been mentioned in the impugned notice. On a perusal of the impugned notice, this Court is convinced that the same is vague and shorn of the alleged deviations. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law, as it suffers from vagueness and the same is accordingly set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the respondents to issue a fresh notice in conformity with the provisions of Section 636 of the Act for taking action against the alleged illegal structures raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.9360 and 11468 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02nd August, 2011 VGB