P.VARALAXMI Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTIONING the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 in not taking follow up action on the notice dated 20.09.2007, and the action of respondents 3 and 5 in not removing the tower, as illegal, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to remove the illegally erected tower from the terrace of the fifth floor of their building.

(2.) THE petitioner is one of the flat owners, among several others, in May Flower Park Apartments which she had purchased from the third respondent. On the fifth floor of the I-Block, the 4th respondent had erected a signal tower without consent of the flat owners. According to the petitioner, a wide crack and cut in their sub-block from the main I-Block was noticed right from the ground to the fifth floor completely from south to north, resulting in their sub-block bending towards the eastern side. It is stated that a play ground and a children 's park is adjacent to their sub-block, that experts had opined that the wide crack was a great hazard and a danger to lives and safety of the flats residents, people in the vicinity and the general public, and that the high tower with its connected heavy load of equipments, and machinery, on the terrace of 5th floor was mainly responsible for the damage. Petitioner would contend that no such cracks, cuts and bends were to be seen in any of the other eight blocks. She lodged a complaint with the second respondent on 17.08.2007, marking a copy thereof to the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the staff of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), from various sections, had inspected and examined the site and had submitted their reports to the Deputy Commissioner. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner issued notice dated 20.09.2007 to the

(3.) IN the Additional Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it is stated that, subsequent to the filing of the counter-affidavit the Industrial Consultancy Services (ICS), JNTU had submitted its report on 15.11.2007 opining that the cracks had occurred because of the location of the Expansion Joint because of thermal movements, that cracks were non-structural and in no way impaired the structural stability of the building and that, as per the opinion of the ICS, the building was safe for property and human beings. On perusal of these counter-affidavits, and on examining the contents of the memo dated 27.02.2007, this Court, by its order dated 16.11.2007, observed that, prima facie, it appeared that the memo itself was illegal. In order to examine the question of legality of the memo and, as several other similar memos had been issued by the Government, ie., memos dated 16.04.1998, 10.05.2001 and 11.02.2002 whereby exemption was granted in favour of JT Mobile Limited, M/s. Tata Communications Limited, Tata Teleservices and Cellular Limited, M/s Bharati Mobile Limited and M/s. Barakamba Sales and Services Limited, this Court directed that these companies be made party-respondents to the writ petition and that notices be served upon them through Special Messenger. This Court also directed that the State, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Municipal Administration, be arrayed as a respondent. This Court examined the inspection report prepared by the Industrial Consultancy Services, JNTU College of Engineering, a copy of which was produced by the learned Standing Counsel, and observed that nothing could be made out from the inspection report as to whether the building was safe for human habitation or not and that the Commissioner, GHMC should file an affidavit taking a specific stand whether the building was safe for property and human beings or not.