JUDGMENT This Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in not mutating the petitioner’s name in municipal records by considering the representation submitted by him on 04.01.2013 in respect of House No. 8-3-237/7/5, Lakshmi Narasimha Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel, who accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. It appears, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents on 04.01.2013 seeking mutation of his name in the property register/records maintained by the Corporation in respect of a specified property. On the precious plea that no action is taken thereon, the present Writ Petition is filed. Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel would point out that Section 208 read with Section 207 of the Act provides for the necessary procedure for securing mutation of the names in the property tax registers and other records maintained by the Corporation. It is significant to note that sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act requires the transferor as well as the transferee to give notice of transfer of the title of the property in question in writing to the Commissioner within a period of three months from the date of such transfer. Sub-section (2) thereof would set out that in case of death of any person primarily liable for payment of taxes, the person to whom the title of the deceased shall be transferred, as heir or otherwise, shall give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner within one year from the death of the deceased. Sub-section (1) of Section 208 of the Act would set out that the notice to be given under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act shall be in Forms 1 and 2, as the case may be of Schedule F and shall state clearly and correctly all the particulars required by the said form. Schedule F of the Act contains both Form 1 and Form 2. Schedule F of the Act contains both Form 1 and Form 2. Sub-section (2) of Section 208 would set out that on receipt of any such notice, the Commissioner may, if he thinks it necessary require the production of the instrument of transfer, if any or a copy thereof obtained under Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908 or any evidence acceptable to the Commissioner on the point of the title of the deceased person being transferred in favour of the applicant. Sub-section (3) of Section 208 would make it clear that no such notice shall be deemed to be validly given unless the property taxes due at the date of notice in respect of the premises to which it relates have been paid and unless such fee as may from time to time be fixed by the Standing Committee for the acceptance of such notice has also been paid. Dr. Y. Padmavathi has also made available a proforma application for obtaining mutation/transfer of property prescribed by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. In both columns 8 and 9 of the said proforma application, it is clearly set out that mutation fee be paid at the rate of 0.1% of the document value where the instrument is registered or at the rate of 0.1% of the market value where the mutation request is based on will deed/succession certificate/legal heir certificate, etcetera. The learned Standing Counsel would further assert that the petitioner has not paid this mutation fee at the rate of 0.1% and hence, in view of the content of subsection (3) of Section 208 of the Act, no such notice shall be deemed to have been validly given to the Commissioner for the Municipal Commissioner to take further action under Section 207 read with Section 208 of the Act. When once a statute prescribed certain conditions, which are required to be complied with, even though the conditions may be otherwise made available, the requirements have got to be satisfied faithfully and truthfully. The fact that the information sought for in Form 1 or Form 2 of Schedule F of the Act may have been otherwise made available by the petitioner is not an answer. It is obligatory for the applicant to comply with the requirements contained therein. The fact that the information sought for in Form 1 or Form 2 of Schedule F of the Act may have been otherwise made available by the petitioner is not an answer. It is obligatory for the applicant to comply with the requirements contained therein. In the instant case, no such application, either in Form 1 or Form 2 of Schedule F of the Act, has been made or filed by the petitioner so far. He has also not paid that 0.1% of the value towards the mutation fee. Therefore, the writ as prayed for cannot be granted. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in accordance with Schedule F of the Act and also comply with the payment of mutation fee beforehand and then, it shall be open to the respondent Corporation to deal with any such application appropriately within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of any such application. Hence, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand dismissed.