THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.807 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner states that she is the owner of the premises bearing No.19-1-27/1 at Kamateepura, Darwaza Dood Bowli, Hyderabad, comprising of ground and two upper floors. According to her, her vendors and predecessors in title constructed a building in the year 1982 under permission accorded by the Municipal Corporation vide proceedings, dated 23-02-1982. She states that some semi- finished portion of the premises was completed by her. The petitioner challenges the notice, dated 04-01-2007, issued by the respondents under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). She contends that notice was not preceded by a notice under Section 452 of the Act. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that when the petitioner was undertaking illegal construction, a notice, dated 17-10-2006, was issued under Section 452 of the Act. According to them, the petitioner did not submit any explanation and accordingly, the impugned notice was issued. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The only dispute is as to whether the impugned notice was preceded by the one issued under Section 452 of the Act. Though the respondents stated in their counter-affidavit that a notice was issued under that provision on 17-10-2006, it is not mentioned that it was served. The notice becomes valid only when it is served and mere issuance of it would not lead to any legal consequences. Even now, a copy of notice under Section 452 of the Act can be served upon the petitioner giving her an opportunity to explain. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. The respondents shall serve a copy of notice, dated 17-10- 2006, issued under Section 452 of the Act to the petitioner. On receipt of the same, the petitioner shall be entitled to submit an explanation to such notice, within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. The further course of action would depend upon the nature of explanation, which the petitioner may submit, and the acceptability thereof by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 3rd February, 2011 VJL/KDL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.807 of 2007 3rd February, 2011 VJL/KDL