WP/26390/2006 of A.V. Prasanna Kumar S/o Alisetty Laxminarayana Vs The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, on 27 December 2006

: O R D E R :

Counsel for the petitioner : Shri B.V. SubbaiahCounsel for the respondent : Smt. G. Jyothi Kiran 27[th] December, 2006

Per G.S.SINGHVI, C.J.

This petition is directed against notice dated 18-12-2006 issuedby Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under Section636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the1955 Act’), whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish thedeviations made while raising construction of the basis of sanctionedbuilding plan and unauthorised construction of third floor.

At the hearing, Smt. G. Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for therespondent brought to our notice that before issuing the noticeimpugned in the writ petition, the respondent had issued notices dated24-11-2006 and 07-12-2006. She also pointed out that in response tonotice dated 24-11-2006, the petitioner had made representation.According to Smt. Jyothi Kiran, the petitioner refused to accept noticedated 07-12-2006 and, therefore, final notice was issued underSection 636 of the 1955 Act. All this has not been controverted by ShriB.V. Subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner. He, however,submitted that notice dated 07-12-2006 was not served on the petitioner.

In our opinion, it is not necessary to decide whether or notnotice dated 07-12-2006 issued under Section 452 of the 1955 Actwas served upon the petitioner because we feel that ends of justicewill be met by giving liberty to the petitioner to make representationagainst the action proposed to be taken by the authorities of theMunicipal Corporation with a direction to the latter to decide the sameby assigning reasons.

In the premise aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with thefollowing directions:

1) Smt. Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for therespondent should handover xerox copy of noticedated 07-12-2006 to Shri B.V. Subbaiah, learnedcounsel for the petitioner today itself.

Within next seven days, the petitioner maymake representation against the proposeddemolition of the constructions made by him inviolation of the sanctioned plan and/or misuse of thepremises.

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation ofHyderabad shall, after considering therepresentation of the petitioner pass appropriateorder within seven days and communicate the sameto the petitioner.

4) Till the passing of appropriate order and sevendays thereafter, the construction of the petitionershall not be demolished.days thereafter, the construction of the petitionershall not be demolished.

5) If the petitioner challenges the order which maybe passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporationof Hyderabad hereafter by filing civil suit, then theconcerned Court shall not pass ex parte injunctionorder and must give notice and reasonableopportunity of hearing to the Municipal Corporationbefore deciding the application for temporaryinjunction.be passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporationof Hyderabad hereafter by filing civil suit, then theconcerned Court shall not pass ex parte injunctionorder and must give notice and reasonableopportunity of hearing to the Municipal Corporationbefore deciding the application for temporaryinjunction.

A copy of this order be sent to Chief Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad who should bring the same to the notice ofthe courts which are dealing with the suits for declaration andinjunction filed against Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 33916 of2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.

December 27, 2006

G.S. SINGHVI, C.J.

ks

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.