VED ELECTRICAL STORES Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER MCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Akella Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. G. Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) We have perused the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23050 of 2002. Though a common order was passed in three writ petitions, only one appeal has been filed before us. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the suit filed by the appellant-writ petitioner is pending and, therefore, the appellant can approach the civil court by making appropriate application and that it is not permissible for the appellant to approach this Court when the suit as regards the same subject matter is pending.

(3.) Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") provides that a written notice has to be issued by the Corporation requiring the person who is erecting or re-erecting such building or executing such work or has erected or re-erected such building or executed such work to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down. In the instant case, no such notice was issued under Section 452 of the Act. However, the respondent-Corporation straightaway issued a notice under Section 636 of the Act ordering demolition. In our opinion, the procedure followed by the Corporation in straightaway issuing the notice under Section 636 of the Act is impermissible in law. The Corporation shall follow the procedure prescribed under the Act.