RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J - Questioning the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 in not taking follow up action on the notice dated 20.9.2007, 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 playground 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 17.8.2007, 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 20.9.2007 to the 3rd respondent to show-cause as to how the telecommunication signal tower was erected without taking prior permission from the competent authorities and that a direction was issued to remove the illegally erected tower within ten days, failing which necessary action would be initiated as per the provisions of HMC Act, 1955. Copies thereof were also given to the 4th respondent. Petitioner would contend that neither the 3rd nor the 4th respondent had complied with the said notice dated 20.9.2007 and that, ultimately, the petitioner sent a reminder letter dated 4.10.2007 requesting respondents 1 and 2 to take urgent action to save public lives.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed, on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, by the second respondent, it is admitted that cracks had developed in the I-Block, that the 4th respondent had erected cellular equipment over the sub-block and that the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 17.8.2007. It is stated that the matter was referred to the Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 10.9.2007, requesting him to inspect the site and submit a report regarding the structural stability of the building. The fact that notice dated 20.9.2007 was issued to the 3rd and 4th respondents, under Section 459 of the HMC Act, asking them to remove the cellular tower erected over the sub-block is also admitted. It is stated that a copy of the notice was also sent to all the flat owners asking them to vacate the flats to enable necessary action to be taken. It is stated that the 3rd respondent, along with its reply, had submitted a structural stability report issued by Kulakarni Consultants, a feasibility report issued by Torsteel Research Foundation of India & Civil AID Technoclinic (P) Limited, according to which the presence of the tower, and the shelter housing the communication systems, did not jeopardize the safety of the building in any way. It is stated that the third respondent had furnished a copy of the Government memo dated 27.2.2007 exempting the 4th respondent from all building regulations. It is stated that the Executive Engineer had referred the matter to the Industrial Consultancy Services, (a Sub