ORDER :-The matter is coming up for admission. 2. Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel takes, notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari calling for the entire record relating to the notice No.303/ACP/ C6/MCH/06 dated 12-12-2006 given under Section 459 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, (hereinafter in short referred to as the Act) issued by the 2nd respondent and declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notice alleging that the premises bearing No.5-5-426/21/W, M.I. Road "is in serious condition or likely to fall" and on requiring the owner/occupier (the petitioner herein being the occupier) to show-cause by submitting objections, if any, within three days setting out all the "objections as to why the same should not be pulled down/ Remove/Repair to prevent all causes of danger therefrom" at the petitioner expenses, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, contrary to the ground realities, opposed to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant such other suitable reliefs. 4. Sri Udyachala Rao, learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and would submit that in the light of the several judicial proceedings it is clear that the respondents are resorting to this mala fide action without any basis whatsoever. 5. The learned Counsel also while taking this Court through the impugned notice would submit that from the tenor of the notice it is clear that the Municipal Corporation in a way acted contrary to the rules and issued notice without even inspecting the building in question. 6. The learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant by-laws of the Municipal Corporation Building Bylaws 1981 (hereinafter in short referred to as By-laws) and would submit that in the light of the same the very issuance of the notice under Section 459 of the Act cannot be sustained. 7. Per contra, Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, would submit that the respondents just had done their statutory duty and the question of mala fides would not arise at all. 7. Per contra, Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, would submit that the respondents just had done their statutory duty and the question of mala fides would not arise at all. The learned Counsel also would contend that the other submissions made in relation to the other judicial proceedings, the respondents are not concerned with at all and the respondents if they are otherwise satisfied they may have to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the by-laws referred to supra. 8. Learned Standing Counsel would also maintain that this is only at the stage of show-cause notice and the notice under Section 459 of the Act had been given calling for objections and the petitioner is at liberty to raise all objections and also to satisfy the respondents that the building is not in a dangerous condition or dilapidated condition, but in fact it is in a fit condition. The learned Standing Counsel also would maintain that in a way writ petition is premature and at the best opportunity be given to the petitioner to raise appropriate objections in this regard and nothing else can be done at this stage. 9. The notice impugned dated 12-12-2006 reads as hereunder: "Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Notice under Section 459 of HMC Act, 1955) No.363/ACP/C6/MCH/06. Dated: 12-12-2006 To Sri/KS. Rangasuri (M/s. Gemini Printers Pvt.Ltd) Pr.No.5-5-426(21/w) MJ. Road. Hyderabad. Sir, Take notice that under Section 459 of H.M.C Act, 1955 the following portion/Building bearing No.5-5-426/21/w, situated at MJ. Road, Hyderabad more fully described in the Schedule given below, is in Serious Condition or likely to fall. Your are hereby required as the Owner/Occupier to show-cause by submitting your objections if any, within (3) days setting out all your objections as to why the same should not be pulled down/Remove/Repair to prevent all causes of danger therefrom by this office at your expenses. You are entitled to make representation and adduce evidence if any on or before the above-mentioned date. SCHEDULE Premises bearing No.5-5-426/21/w, situated at MJ. Road, Hyderabad Bounded on East by : Road (MJ. Road) West by : A.PRB Land North by : Open land of (A.P.H.B) South by : A.C.B. Offices. Sd/XXXX Assistant City Planner Circle VI, MCH." 10. You are entitled to make representation and adduce evidence if any on or before the above-mentioned date. SCHEDULE Premises bearing No.5-5-426/21/w, situated at MJ. Road, Hyderabad Bounded on East by : Road (MJ. Road) West by : A.PRB Land North by : Open land of (A.P.H.B) South by : A.C.B. Offices. Sd/XXXX Assistant City Planner Circle VI, MCH." 10. It is stated that the petitioner is printing and publishing two newspapers Skyline English daily and Neti Manadesam Telugu daily under the premises bearing No.21/W, MJ. Road, Hyderabad (MCH No.5-5-426/21 W) having been inducted as a lessee as early as in 1974. It is also stated that the petitioner has been regularly paying the lease amount and on erroneous ground that the petitioner has been in arrears of lease amount, the Assistant Estate Officer (Lands), AP. Housing Board filed Case No.6/CA-I/2004 before the learned Competent Authority, South and Central, AP. Housing Board seeking eviction of the petitioner from the said premises and the Competent Authority, who is none else than the Secretary of AP Housing Board made an order of eviction on certain erroneous grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by filing CMA.No.281 of 2005 along with an application in I.A.No.2977 of 2005 praying for stay of the implementation for the order of eviction dated 29-9-2005 and the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to whom the CMA was made over, passed order dated 14-11-2005 granting stay of the operation of the eviction order dated 29-9-2005 and also directed issuance of notice. It is stated that the said stay order is still in force. It is also further stated that the learned Competent Authority, South and Central, AP Housing Board in Case No.6/CA1/2004 dated 29-9-2005 noted that the petitioner is the, tenant of the suit schedule premises No.21/W, M.J Road, Hyderabad the same has been leased in the first instance to one, Sri D. Sitaram, Editor, Skyline with effect from 25-6-1974 for a period of three years vide proceedings No.74/H-III/72-13 dated 25-6-1974. However, contrary to the finding that the petitioner herein "is the tenant of the suit schedule property" mentioned in the order that "there is no lease existing since it had already expired" ordered eviction to the petitioner. 11. Several other factual details also had been narrated relating to the payment of rents etc. However, contrary to the finding that the petitioner herein "is the tenant of the suit schedule property" mentioned in the order that "there is no lease existing since it had already expired" ordered eviction to the petitioner. 11. Several other factual details also had been narrated relating to the payment of rents etc. It is pertinent to note that these aspects may have to be gone into in appropriate proceedings, which are said to be pending. It is also stated that on the representations submitted by the petitioner to the Honble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to issue orders for sale of the schedule property along with 13 wide passage upto the main road, the petitioner was invited for discussions by the A.P. Housing Board and after fruitful discussions, the Chairman of the A.P Housing Board was authorized as per the Boards Resolution passed at the meeting held on 28-11-2002 to inspect the site in detail along with nonofficial Member Sri. Devara Mallappa and submitted the report. The Chairman and the Member after due inspection of the property recommended the sale of 614.86 square yards of site and the old building existing thereon viz., premises No.21/ West, MJ. Road in favour of the petitioner herein, inter alia, subject to the condition that the petitioner should not claim any title to the portion of lane. The Sub-Committee also recommended that the lease-holder has to pay the value of the existing building along with rent upto date. Based on the report, the Board, at its meeting held on 20-5-2003, resolved to request the Government to accord permission for sale of the land and portion of the lane mentioned above subject to the condition that the lessee should not claim any title to the lane portion, the same being common one, pay the value of the existing building, structure etc., and upto date lease amount and any other condition which the Board may deem fit to safeguard its interests. Thereupon, the A.P. Housing Board, represented by its Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, through letter No.574/21/W/J9/72 dated 13-6-2003, addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Housing Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requested to arrange to issue necessary orders for sale of the aforementioned properties to the petitioner. Thereupon, the A.P. Housing Board, represented by its Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, through letter No.574/21/W/J9/72 dated 13-6-2003, addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Housing Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requested to arrange to issue necessary orders for sale of the aforementioned properties to the petitioner. While the proposal was pending with the Government, taking shelter under the decision in W.P. No.26653 of 2001 dated 14-10-2003 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court, the Housing Board submitted a letter withdrawing the aforementioned proposal although the said decision has no application to the property situated in M.J Road, Hyderabad. 12. It is also stated that through G.O. Ms. No.29 Housing (HB-2) Department dated 24-5-2005, the Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted by the Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner to sell 151 1.33 square yards of site situate at No.10/E and 15/E at M.J Road to the Proprietor, Daily Hindi Milap at Rs.2,500/- per Square yards for the purpose of running press and for residential use. It is also stated that in regard to the said property no steps were taken by the A.P Housing Board to revoke the initial proposal applying the decision of this Court dated 14-10-2005 in W.P. No.26653 of 2001. Same submissions relating to discrimination also had been made. 13. It is also further stated that the competent authority, A.P. Housing Board while holding that the petitioner is not to be paid arrears of lease amount, erroneously held that the leasehold properties were required for the Housing Boards use although that was not a ground on which the eviction case was filed. 14. Several other factual details had been narrated and it is stated that the Housing Boards claim is falsified with the fact that subsequently large extent of 5117.68 square yards had been allotted to the Congress Party as per G.O. Ms. No.76 dated 25-11-2005 and out of the same, an extent of 3000.32 square yards had been handed over on 18-4-2006. It is also further stated that although, the Union Cabinet gave its approval to the policy on allotment of land for political parties to enable their effective functioning, one of the salient features of the said policy is that the land is to be allotted to the political party may comprise one or more plots. 15. Several other factual details are also narrated in relation thereto. 15. Several other factual details are also narrated in relation thereto. It is also further stated that ignoring the fact that the petitioner has been printing and running two newspapers right from 1974 at the subject-premises and further fact that there is stay of eviction issued by a Competent Civil Court, the Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board addressed a Letter No.4334/J5/2005 to the District Collector, Hyderabad District requesting the letter to instruct the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nampally Mandai to take over the leasehold premises under the occupation of the petitioner amongst others mentioning the incorrect and untrue fact that no lease was existing and "taking all consequential action thereto" impliedly meaning demolition of the leasehold premises under the occupation of the petitioner. Visualizing the hard reality that the District Collector, Hyderabad and the Mandai Revenue Officer, Nampally Revenue Mandal cannot be refused to act on the abovementioned letter dated 22-4-2006 and to ward off the imminent threat of highhanded taking over possession of the leasehold premises from the petitioner, under the lame excuse that they do not have knowledge of the stay order granted in favour of the petitioner, by, the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court in CMA No.2781 of 2005 and particularly in view of the misstatement of fact that "no lease was existing" contrary to the finding recorded by the competent authority, South and Central A.P Housing Board. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.24588 of 2006 parrying for a writ of mandamus, wherein it is stated that an order of status-quo was made for a limited period and the same is being extended. It is also further stated that to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent delivered at the schedule premises the impugned notice and several other factual details had been narrated at length in Para Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 16. It is also further stated that to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent delivered at the schedule premises the impugned notice and several other factual details had been narrated at length in Para Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 16. The main contention of the Counsel for the writ petitioner is that though specifically the concerned authorities are not impleaded as co-nominee parties to the present writ petition, it is a clear case of implied mala fidies in the light of the several legal proceedings and non-parties to the present litigation being unsuccessful in getting the writ petitioner evicted because of the judicial proceedings pending, had resorted to this method by influencing the respondents. This Court is not inclined to express any further opinion especially in the light of the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents that the respondents are just prosecuting their statutory duty or obligation by issuing the show-cause notice. It is no doubt true that on a careful analysis of the show-cause notice it would appear as though the authority prima facie came to the conclusion relating to the nature of the building. 17. Section 459 of the Act reads as hereunder: "459. Opportunity for stating objections :The Commissioner shall issue a notice under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 456, subsection (1) of Section 457 or sub-section (1) of Section 458, after giving the owner or occupier, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of stating any objection and adducing evidence, if any, and after being satisfied that the objection which is raised is invalid or insufficient." 18. Section 456 of the Act reads as hereunder: "456. Section 456 of the Act reads as hereunder: "456. Removal of structures, trees, etc., " which are in ruins or likely to fall (1) If it shall at any time appear to the Commissioner that any structure (including under this expression any building, wall, parapet, payment, floor, steps, railings, door or window frames or shutters or roof, or other structure and anything affixed to or projection from or resting on, any building, wall, parapet or other structure) is in ruinous condition or likely to fall, or is in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by, such structure or any other structure or place in the neighborhood thereof, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of such structure to do one or more of the following things, namely : (i) to pull down, (ii) to secure, (iii) to remove, or (iv) to repair such structure or thing, and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom. (2) The Commissioner may also, if he thinks fit, require the said owner or occupier by the said notice, either forthwith or before proceedings to pull down, secure, remove or repair the structure or things, to set up a proper and sufficient hoard or fence for the protection of passers-by and other persons, with a convenient platform and hand-rail, if there be room enough for the same the Commissioner shall think the same desirable, to serve as footway for passengers outside of such hoard or fence. (3) If it appears to the Commissioner that the danger from a structure which is ruinous or about to fall is imminent, he may, before giving notice as aforesaid or before the period of notice expires, fence off, take down, secure or repair the said structure or take such steps or cause work to be executed as may be required to arrest the danger. (4) Any expenses incurred by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) shall be paid by the owner or occupier of the structure. (4) Any expenses incurred by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) shall be paid by the owner or occupier of the structure. (5)(a) where the Commissioner is of the opinion whether on receipt of an application or otherwise that the only or the most convenient means by which the owner or occupier of structure such as is referred to in sub-section (I) can pull down, secure, remove or repair such structure, is by entering any of the adjoining premises belonging to some other person the Commissioner after giving such person a reasonable opportunity of stating any objection may, if no such objection is raised or if any objection which is raised appears to him invalid or insufficient, by an order in writing, authorize the said owner or occupier to enter such adjoining premises. (b) Every such order bearing the signature of the Commissioner shall be sufficient authority to the person in whose favour it is made, or to any agent or person employed by him for this purpose, after giving to the owner of the premises reasonable written notice of his intention so to do, to enter upon the said premises with assistants and workmen, at any time between sunrise and sunset, and to execute the necessary work. (c) In executing, any work under this section as little damage as possible shall be done to the adjoining owners property, and the owner or occupier for the benefit of which the work is done, shall- (i) cause the work to be executed with the least practicable delay; (ii) pay compensation to any person who sustains damage by the execution of the said work." 19. The scope and ambit of Sections 456 and 459 referred to above need not be dealt in the elaboration. 20. The relevant By-laws which had been referred to supra are as hereunder: By-law of 14 dealt with Unsafe Building reads as hereunder: "14.1. All unsafe buildings shall be considered to constitute danger to public safety and shall be restored by repairs or demolished or dealt with as otherwise directed by the Authority. This would cover existing buildings as well as defective buildings constructed in the immediate past." 21. All unsafe buildings shall be considered to constitute danger to public safety and shall be restored by repairs or demolished or dealt with as otherwise directed by the Authority. This would cover existing buildings as well as defective buildings constructed in the immediate past." 21. 14(2) deals with examination of unsafe building specifies as hereunder: 14.2 Examination of unsafe building:- The Authority shall examine or cause to be examined every building reported to be unsafe or damaged, and shall make a written record of such examination. 22. 14 (3) deals with notice to owner, occupier reads as hereunder: 14.3 Notice to Owner, Occupier:-whenever the Authority finds any building or portion thereof to be unsafe, it shall, in accordance with established procedure for legal notice, give to the owner and occupier of such building written notices stating the defects thereof. This notice shall require the owner or the occupier within a stated time either to complete specified repairs or improvements or to demolish and remove the building or portion thereof. 23. Elaborate submissions are made that the procedure specified under the bylaws had not been followed and virtually the impugned notice had been given in the form of show-cause notice prejudging the issue and it would be a futile exercise to drive the petitioner to submit the objections in the peculiar facts and circumstances. 24. Be that as it may, this is a case where a notice was issued under Section 459 of the Act calling for objections to be submitted in this regard. It is needless to say that the elaborate facts referred to supra can be the grounds, which may be raised by way of objections before the respondents in answer to the impugned notice. The notice is under Section 459 of the Act, the stage of passing an order under Section 456 of the Act did not reach till now. It is needless to say that the elaborate facts referred to supra can be the grounds, which may be raised by way of objections before the respondents in answer to the impugned notice. The notice is under Section 459 of the Act, the stage of passing an order under Section 456 of the Act did not reach till now. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to raise all objections inclusive of the detailed grounds raised in the present writ petition before the respondents 1 and 2 to the impugned showcause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents shall consider such objections in accordance with law especially keeping in view the statutory provisions and also the by-laws referred to supra and it is needless to say that the petitioner also is permitted to place such additional material to convince the respondents relating to the present state and nature of the building in question, the respondents shall consider all the objections in proper perspective and take a decision in this regard in accordance with law, after such objections are submitted by the writ petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 25. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.