(1.) This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, bearing Notice No.20/TPS/C9/GHMC/2011, dated 25.05.2011, of respondent No.2, issued under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').
(2.) I have heard Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel, representing the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner is the owner of flat Nos.4 and 8, Block No.20, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. The said flats were constructed by the A.P.Housing Board, and were allotted by the Government. On the complaint of respondent No.3, who is the petitioner's neighbour, respondent No.2 issued notice under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action for removal of RCC roof at ground floor and first floor on the common passage raised without valid permission shall not be removed. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13438 of 2011. While keeping the said writ petition pending, this Court has permitted the petitioner to submit her explanation and directed respondent No.2 to consider the explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 06.05.2011. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed order under Section 636 of the Act on 25.05.2011 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction of RCC roof at ground floor and first floor in the common passage within 24 hours, failing which, the same will be removed by respondent No.1 at her expenses. Feeling aggrieved by this proceeding, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
(3.) At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 are completely non-speaking, which failed to take into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner.