ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

a) The recommendations in the Report dated 19/06/2017 of the third Respondent bearing No JNTUKJVCEK/CE/ICS/SM Lab/ Job No.32/17-18 Extension Job No.385 dated 23/04/2016, as illegal, arbitrary and as inconsistent with the orders passed by this Honble court in Writ Appeals Nos.1177 of 2016 and 1218 of 2016 dated 17th November, 2016 and also as inconsistent with its own observations and is impracticable and is contrary to the conditions of the buildings in question, b) to declare that the orders dated 01/08/2017 of the Executive Authority of the second Respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal and as unjust and as in violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions contained in GHMC Act c) Declare the Endorsement dated 05/08/2017 of the second Respondent bearing No Rc-G2-149090-2012 as arbitrary, illegal and as unjust, as in violation of principles of natural justice and also as in violation of the provisions contained in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955-56 And d) issue a consequential direction directing the second Respondent to take necessary steps forthwith for demolition of the buildings in question and to ensure safety of all the concerned including its residents occupants neighbors and others and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Ashwin Kumar, learned counsel for un-official respondents, Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration.

3. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the observations made by the 3rd respondent in the structural stability report are beyond the scope of the orders of the Division Bench dated 17.11.2016 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.1177 and 1218 of 2016. Through the said orders, the appellants were directed to approach the 3rd respondent with a request to cause an inspection of the ground floor, however, the 3rd respondent, without refraining itself to the request so made, had assessed the nature of the construction of the roof, material with which the roof was constructed and recommended certain repairs to the roof. Further, in the said report, the 3rd respondent has not analyzed the inspections done by the concerned technical persons in right perspective and did not take the report given by the 3rd respondent in a right perspective.

The learned senior counsel would further submit that the impugned endorsement contained a reference as if the Executive Authority passed orders dated 01.08.2017 directing the writ petitioner to make all repairs as per the recommendations of JNTU, Kakinada within seven (07) days from the receipt the endorsement. The said orders dated 01.08.2017 were passed behind the back of the petitioner and no notice of whatsoever nature was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned endorsement issued based on the orders passed behind the back of the petitioner suffers from the vice of flagrant violation of principles of natural justice.

The learned senior counsel would further submit that while issuing the impugned endorsement failed to take note of the observation made in the Structural Stability Certificate that the life of the building cannot be predicted even after the repairs suggested in the said report are carried out. Further, the 2nd respondent failed to take due note of the adverse effects that may result in case any untoward incident happens which must always be the prime concern while evaluating the structural stability certificate. Unfortunately, despite the clear observation made by the 3rd respondent that the life of the structure is unpredictab