HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7536 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner and to be in possession of an extent of 1452 sq. yards in Sy.No.24, Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the plan sanctioned by the respondents, vide permit No.GL/EP/125/96, dated 11.03.1996, he had constructed a building with stilt floor + ground floor + first floor; the stilt floor was shown in the sanctioned plan with a watchman room and a toilet; a stair case, ground and first floors had been constructed; the sanction plan did not disclose that the stilt floor was specifically earmarked for parking; and he had submitted an application seeking regularization of deviations in construction by paying the requisite fee which the respondents are said to have acknowledged receipt of. It is also their case that they were paying property tax regularly; the respondents had issued a notice dated 19.03.2010, under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), based on a complaint from Sri Indrasena Reddy, Advocate; the said Advocate had nothing to do with the property; and that they had submitted a detailed representation on 22.03.2010 in reply to the notice under Section 452 of the Act. Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, would submit that the notice under Section 452 (2) of the Act merely required the petitioner to show cause why further action should not be taken and it is only after considering the petitioners’ objections would further action be taken by the respondent-Corporation. He would deny knowledge of receipt of the petitioners’ representation to the show cause notice. In such circumstances, I consider it appropriate to permit the petitioners to submit a representation afresh, to the notice issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955, within one week from today. In case the petitioners submit such a representation within the time stipulated hereinabove, the respondent-Corporation shall consider the application and, thereafter, take action in accordance with law. In case no such representation is filed within the aforesaid stipulated period it is open to the respondent-Corporation to proceed further and take action against the petitioners, in accordance with law, including the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the rules and the building bye-laws made thereunder The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:07.04.2010 Usd