G.Narasimha Yadav S/O. Mallaiah v. State Of Telangana

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.37804 of 2015 Dated 25.11.2015 Between:

G.Narasimha Yadav and 3 others ... Petitioners and The State of Telangana rep. by its Prl.Secretary Municipal Administration Dept., Hyderabad and 2 others

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.L.Ravichander for Mr.C.Naresh Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.Chatla Madhu, SC for GHMC The Court made the following:

O r d e r :

The petitioner, who has, admittedly, raised cellar without permission and constructed a single building despite obtaining permission for two separate buildings under two permits and also failed to maintain the prescribed set backs, filed this Writ Petition with the grievance that none of the notices issued under Sections 452 (1), 452 (2) and 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, have been served on them.

Mr.Chatla Madhu, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, placed before the Court, photocopies of the above-mentioned notices, which were stated to have been signed in proof of their service. Mr.L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.C.Naresh Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the person, who, purportedly, signed the impugned notices, is not the one among the petitioners or their representatives.

Inasmuch as there is a serious dispute on the service of the impugned notices and a serious action of demolition is proposed to be taken, I am of the opinion that the petitioners shall be given an opportunity of being heard before further steps are taken. Accordingly, without delving into the legality or otherwise of the impugned notices, the petitioners are permitted to make a detailed representation to respondent No.3 within one week from the date of receipt of this order. On

considering the said representation, respondent No.3 shall take a decision and proceed further depending upon the nature of such decision.

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.48631 of 2015, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 25th November, 2015 LUR