THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31945 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.581/TPS5/SZ-C5/GHMC/2011, dated 29-11-2011/01-12-2011 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and consequently set aside the same. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the present notice was issued under Section 636 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner demolished the stone masonry railing of the retaining wall of the Musi River and filled the part of Musi River with debris/earth soil and unauthorizedly erected structure/sheds by misleading the facts, that as per master plan, this area in dispute cannot be used for any other purpose except for grazing, that whereas notice under Section 452 of the Act was issued for not obtaining any sanction for construction of the sheds and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned proceedings. 3. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation contended that this notice can be treated as a notice under Section 452 of the Act and the petitioner can as well give explanation to this notice so that appropriate decision will be taken by the respondent- corporation. 4. It is not in dispute before this Court that notice under Section 452 of the Act, dated 20-06-2011 was issued alleging that the petitioner made certain unauthorized constructions namely AC sheet sheds, for which the petitioner gave an explanation on 25-06-2011. Thereafter, the respondent- corporation passed an order, dated 02-07-2011 stating that the explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory and therefore, he was directed to remove the structures under Section 636 (1) of the Act. Against the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18839 of 2011. This Court by order, dated 19-09-2011 directed the Commissioner to consider the explanation, dated 25- 06-2011, and further explanation, if any, that may be filed by the petitioner within two weeks from that day and pass a detailed order, if he has any reason not to accept such explanation before taking further action under Section 636 of the Act. In pursuance of this order, the present impugned order is passed. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contraventions as alleged in the notices under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act are entirely different. There cannot be any dispute that grounds mentioned in Section 452 notice should be consistent with the grounds mentioned in Section 636 notice. So, earlier notice under Section 452 of the Act would go to show that the petitioner made unauthorized constructions. Whereas, the present impugned order would reveal that the petitioner allegedly demolished stone masonry railing of the retaining wall of the Musi River and filled the part of Musi River with debris/earth soil and raised construction. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. However, liberty is given to the respondent-corporation to give a notice under Section 452 of the Act calling for explanation giving all the details with regard to demolition of retaining wall on Musi River and the encroachments and filling the part of Musi River with debris/earth soil and making construction of go downs. After receipt of explanation, the respondent- corporation shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law. No costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 08-12-2011 Hsd