P. L. N. SARMA, J.

( 1 ) WHEN this writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting two of us (Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and B. S. Raikote, JJ), they felt during the course of heating that the scope of S. 437 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and the effect of the decree dated 23-12-1987 in O. S. No. 2804 of 1982 on the file of IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which became final by the ultimate dismissal of Special Leave Petition No. 5048 of 1991 dated 8-4-1991 by the Supreme Court and the power of the Corporation under S. 452 of "the Act" as well as the procedure to be followed in resorting to demolition of a building under "the Act" in the absence of the guidelines provided by "the Act" or under the Rules, require determination by a larger Bench having regard to the great and general importance of the issues involved. The learned Judges also felt that the stakes involved in the present case are heavy and that the interpretation put upon S. 452 of "the Act" by a Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad v. Shamsuddin Hasan Khud-ankmen, (1978) 1 Andh WR 91, insofar as the said decision held that in the case of construction of a building without permission, demolition is not the only course open to the Corporation requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the learned Judges directed the office to place the papers before The Hon ble The Chief Justice for necessary orders for constituting a Full Bench and posting the writ petition.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been posted before us as per the orders of the Hon ble The Chief Justice. That is how the matter has come up before us.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, a partnership firm, represented by its partner, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a mandamus or any other writ or order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in demolishing the structures under construction is in violation or in the teeth of the decree passed in O. S. No. 2804 of 1982 on the file of IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad without any notice on Sunday, i. e. , 18-7-1993 and therefore, illegal, bad and high-handed and opposed to all canons of justice.

( 4 ) IN the original affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that it filed O. S. No. 2804 of 1982 on the file of IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking a declaration that the plan, marked as Ex. A. 13 in the suit should be deemed to have been sanctioned and that it is entitled to construct as per the said plan and also sought a consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent from taking any action for demolition of the structure. The said suit was decreed by the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent unsuccessfully challenged the said decree in A. S. No. 91 of 1988 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge-cum-Principal Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases as well as in the Second Appeal in the High Court. Special Leave Petition preferred against the order of the High Court to the Supreme Court was also dismissed at the admission stage itself. Even though the respondent lost the legal battle carried to the highest Court of the land, it issued a show cause notice as to why the building or such part of the building as it found to be unauthorised should not be removed or pulled down. Thereupon the petitioner was constrained to file E. P. No. 23 of 1991 on the file of IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which was dismissed by the executing Court on 15-7-1993 erroneously. , Petitioner also reserved its right to challenge the said order of the executing Court. Alleging that the respondent on a public holiday, i. e. , Sunday dated 18-7-1993 without even issuing final notice to the reply given by the petitioner, with the assistance of the poli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document