HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the notice No.1/TPS/C18/N2/GHMC, dated 17.05.2014, issued by the respondent, directing the petitioner to vacate and remove the dilapidated shop bearing No.1-5-96, situated at General Bazar, Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s grandfather was the original tenant of the schedule property which consists of one mulgi used for running business in coconuts, bangles and fancy items under the name and style of ‘Sai Nandini Bangles Stores’; that he obtained the said premises from one B.S.Sukhdev Singh in the year 1955 on monthly rent @ Rs.20/-, which was enhanced to Rs.40/- per month in the year 1982; that the petitioner’s grandfather renewed the trade license; and that after his death, the petitioner has been running the business for her livelihood. While so, the respondent issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within a period of three days, to which the petitioner submitted her reply stating that the said shop was constructed in the year 1984 and it was renewed in recent years and is in good condition and there is no threat to public and hence, requested not to proceed with demolition, however, the respondent are taking further steps to demolish the said shop and hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow this Writ Petition.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent submitted that the respondent-Corporation has issued the impugned notice under Section 456 of the GHMC Act, 1955, to avoid danger to the public since the subject property is in dilapidated condition and as such, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Perusal of the record discloses that the impugned notice dated 17.05.2014 was issued basing on the structural stability report of the Engineering Section, dated 09.05.2014, however, a copy of the same has not been placed on record by learned Standing Counsel for respondent despite granting sufficient time.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the subject property is in good condition and the age of the subject property is 30 years. In the writ affidavit, it is specifically mentioned that grandfather of the petitioner has taken the said property on rental basis in the year 1955, therefore, the subject property might be aged about 70 years. However, the respondent-Corporation has failed to place on record the structural stability report dated

09.05.2014, which is the basis for issuing the impugned notice.

7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 17.05.2014 is set aside. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondent-Corporation from taking steps against the subject property, by duly following the procedure contemplated under the GHMC Act, if the same is in dilapidated condition and is posing threat/danger to public life.

8. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.

__________________________________

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:11.11.2025 dr