THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22738 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners were accorded permission by the Municipal Corporation of Eluru - the second respondent herein to make construction of ground plus three floors over the land in plot No.23 B-5- 85, Ramachandrarao peta, Eluru. On noticing that there were deviations, particularly, as regards projections and set backs, on all the four sides, a notice under Sections 452, 461 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short), which applies to the second respondent was issued requiring the petitioner to explain as to why necessary action be not taken in view of the violations noticed in the construction. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the second respondent. Through the impugned notice, the second respondent required the petitioners to explain as to why action shall not be taken. The nature of violations that are said to have been noticed are also mentioned. The petitioners have to put-forward their version of the matter within the stipulated time. It cannot be said that the show cause notice is without basis or jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to submit explanation within two weeks from today. The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders after considering the explanation. The nature of action to be taken would depend upon the outcome of the show cause notice. Till such exercise is completed, the respondents shall not demolish the premises in question. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 22nd October, 2009 Note: Issue CC in three days. (B/o) GHN