When an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, the High Court should not interfere in a writ petition unless there are good grounds to do so.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for the respondent No.1, Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri Ch.Dhanunjaya, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents issuing the Building Permit Order vide Permit No.1086/3494/B/Z4/KAD/2018 on dtd. 10/11/2020 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the Building Permit Order vide Permit No.1086/3494/B/Z4/KAD/2018 on dtd. 10/11/2020 and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.S.No.280 of 2007 filed by the petitioner's deceased father against the defendants therein including the unofficial respondent No.5 and some official respondents, is pending on the file of XI Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam in which after the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner has filed an application for substitution. He further submits that the material facts were not brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent consequently the grant of the building permission in favour of the 5th respondent has affected adversely the petitioner's right in the property.

4. As is evident from the prayer the petitioner is seeking the cancellation of the building permission No.1086/3494/B/Z4/KAD/2018 on dtd. 10/11/2020 granted in favour of unofficial respondent No.5, by the respondent No.2.

5. Sec. 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, in short the Act read with Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 in short the Act, 1994, provides for remedy to an aggrieved person from grant of building permission, to approach the Commissioner for cancellation of permission.

6. Sec. 450 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 reads as under:

"If at any time after permission to proceed with any building or work has been given, the Commissioner is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Sec. 428 or 433 in the further information if any, furnished, he may cancel such permission and any work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without his permission."

7. A perusal of Sec. 450 makes it evident that, if at any time after permission for building work is granted the Commissioner on being satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Ss. 428 or 433 in the further information, if any, furnished, he may cancel such permission and any work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without his permission.

8. In Manohar Rao Kulkarni vs. Commissioner, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Town Planning Sec. ), W.P.No.4816 of 1968 , this Court held that the Commissioner is given the power to cancel the permission granted in the circumstances mentioned in Sec. 450 of the Act. In B. Laxmi W/o. B. Adi Reddy vs. Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, W.P.No.14772 of 2006 also this Court held that Sec. 450 of the Act deals with power of Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material representation by the applicant. It was further held that whether the power is to be exercised as specified in Sec. 450 of the Act or not in a particular set of facts, it is a matter to be examined by the concerned Commissioner.

9. This Court is also of the considered view that once the power of cancell