ORDER : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by petitioners challenging the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in taking appropriate action on the representations filed by the petitioners to restrain 6th respondent from setting up a Care Centre for children suffering with cancer in House No. 59, Street No. 2, Avenue No. 1, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (for short 'the subject property'), a residential zone, and in not passing consequential orders. 2. The subject property belongs to children of 7th respondent and the petitioners stay in and around the said premises. 3. 6th respondent is a Non-Government Organization. It is said to be registered under Section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 on 25-07-2006 as a Company formed inter alia to provide child care and allied activities. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS 4. Petitioners allege that 6th respondent intends to set up a Cancer Care Centre for children and their parents in the subject property belonging to 7th respondent which is located in a residential neighborhood in gross violation of the Zoning Regulations issued by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 vide G.O. Ms. No. 363 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) Department dt. 21-08-2010. They allege that it would result in the violation of the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 5. Petitioners allege that 6th respondent is intending to set up a care centre for pediatric cancer patients in the subject property which is situated amidst the houses of the petitioners in the Writ Petition; that one Shabbir, who is said to be one of the team members of 6th respondent, misled the petitioners into assuming that the above property was being taken up for use as an office; 7th respondent had executed a lease in favour of 6th respondent for the purpose of setting up a care centre for pediatric cancer patients; from the infant grandson of 4th petitioner to 74 year old 2nd petitioner, all are likely to be put to untold trauma in seeing young children battling with cancer in their immediate neighborhood; and petitioners would find it difficult to live in the same neighborhood all throughout the year and are likely to see the daily suffering, agony and occasional death of young children more closely and with more frequency. 6. 6. Petitioners allege that the activity of 6th respondent would fall under the category of "Nursing homes/health facilities" as per the above G.O. which would require a building in a plot above 500 square meters abutting road of minimum 18 meters width; that the subject property is located abutting a road of only 30' width; since 6th respondent claims that they "provide nutritional, educational and recreational support, transportation services and counseling services", this would amount to an activity or use which is not listed under column-1 of the "uses permitted" in residential zone and would therefore automatically fall within the ambit of 1st entry in the "uses prohibited" column. 7. They further allege that 6th respondent is proposing to provide facilities for 18 patients and with at least two attendant parents for each patient, number of people using the subject premises would be around 54; including the staff and other volunteers/visitors at times there could be more than 100 people in the premises; for premises having such large number of people, under the AP Fire Services Act, 1999, the building height should be above 6 meters and a prior clearance of Fire Department from fire safety point of view should also be obtained; and that the 6th respondent has not obtained it. They allege that in the event of there being any fire, there would be no scope for fire engine to rescue the occupants of the subject premises. 8. They allege that there is a possibility of periodic visits from donors, school children and charity minded individuals, who may come and spend time with the inmates of 6th respondent's facility and also celebrate festivals etc with the inmates, and this would result in clogging up of the road where the petitioners' properties are located causing accidents to their children and their pets. They state that the activities of 6th respondent assume the color of a commercial activity which cannot be permitted in a Core Residential Zone. 9. It is alleged that in the event of 6th respondent is unable to provide shelter for all the persons accompanying the suffering child, they would try to shelter under trees on the streets or sleep on the existing foot path or on the road itself and this which could pose a severe security hazard to the petitioners. 10. 9. It is alleged that in the event of 6th respondent is unable to provide shelter for all the persons accompanying the suffering child, they would try to shelter under trees on the streets or sleep on the existing foot path or on the road itself and this which could pose a severe security hazard to the petitioners. 10. They allege that representations made by the petitioners from 28-07-2014 onwards to the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the matter did not yield any result and therefore they were therefore constrained to file this Writ Petition. COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT No. 1 11. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that it had received a complaint on 01-08-2014 from the petitioners regarding alleged unauthorized setting up in the subject premises of a Medi-Care Centre adjacent to their houses by 6th respondent and requesting them to enquire into the matter. It contended that the Assistant City Planner and Assistant Medical Officer of Health, Circle-10, GHMC has inspected the premises and found that the building consists of ground, first and second floors; that 7th respondent had obtained building permission for construction of the building for residential use; that the building of 7th respondent as per Master Plan is located in a residential zone; 6th respondent is in occupation of the said building and is using it as a Child Care Centre; since this is opposed by the petitioners, initially a notice dt. 23-08-2014 was issued to 6th respondent asking it to bring the usage of the building in conformity with the sanction plan within ten days, failing which further action was threatened to be initiated as per the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'); in response thereto, 6th respondent gave a representation dt. 23-08-2014 was issued to 6th respondent asking it to bring the usage of the building in conformity with the sanction plan within ten days, failing which further action was threatened to be initiated as per the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'); in response thereto, 6th respondent gave a representation dt. 30-08-2014 stating that it is a charitable institution registered under Section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956; that it exists for welfare of the rural children and it provides temporary residential accommodation for rural under privileged children when they are outpatients in Mehdi Nawaz Jung Institute of Cancer & Research Centre and Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute and the like; and that the said children are neither provided any medical treatment nor nursed at the centre established by 6th respondent in the premises; and only temporary accommodation would be provided to the under privileged children and their caregivers free of cost. It therefore contended that this activity of providing temporary residential accommodation by 6th respondent in the premises for rural under privileged children, who are outpatients of the above hospitals/institutions, is not prohibited under the provisions of the Act and the Zoning Regulations. According to 1st respondent, the usage of the building would have to be treated as coming in category of "night shelter" to the children who are taking treatment as outpatients in the above hospitals and the said usage of the building falls under the category of "Boarding Houses" which is permissible in the residential areas as mentioned in the above G.O. It also denied that there is any trade or business activity being carried out in the above premises and contended that a trade licence is not required to be obtained by 6th respondent under the provisions of the Act. COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF 6th RESPONDENT 12. The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that it had entered into a lease agreement with 7th respondent vide Document No. 1458 of 2014 dt. 04-04-2014 for taking the subject premises on lease from 7th respondent and has been paying monthly rent from April 2014 onwards. It denied that it's team member M.S. Shabbir had misled the petitioners that the subject property was being taken up by 6th respondent for financial services. 04-04-2014 for taking the subject premises on lease from 7th respondent and has been paying monthly rent from April 2014 onwards. It denied that it's team member M.S. Shabbir had misled the petitioners that the subject property was being taken up by 6th respondent for financial services. It stated that apart from providing clean and safe environment for children to recuperate following cancer treatment in the above hospitals, it is providing counseling services for the children and their families during the said traumatic experience. It denied that it is in any way infringing upon the Zoning Regulations as set out in G.O. Ms. No. 363 dt. 21-08-2010 and asserted that it is providing free accommodation and non-medical holistic care to children between the ages of 0-12 who are brought by their parents from small towns and villages to large hospitals in metro cities for treatment of cancer and other chronic diseases. It contended that the hospitals for which 6th respondent works, provide high quality treatment at low or no cost to the patients; that these children are admitted to the hospitals during the period of treatment, but have no place to go in the city during the gaps in the treatment owing to financial reasons; and therefore 6th respondent provides these children and their parents a safe, clean place to stay, free rations of grains and nutritional supplements, transport to their hospital as well as recreational, educational and counseling support free of cost. It also alleged that pediatric cancer has a high survival rate of nearly 80%, but hospitals cannot keep the afflicted children as inpatients at all times as this would reduce the number of patients they can treat, and places, such as those established by 6th respondent in the above premises, provide a happy and peaceful place for the families to recover from their trauma. 13. It stated that it had entered into memorandum of understanding with a few specialty cancer hospitals in Hyderabad such as those set out above, under which both 6th respondent and the respective hospital vet and decides which of the pediatric cancer patients and their parents require a 'shelter' during their treatment visits and then they are assigned to 6th respondent; that any activity and visit is undertaken with planning and prior arrangements. 14. 14. It categorically stated that no treatment or medical intervention of any kind takes place in the subject premises and it does not interfere or get involved in the medical aspect of the care of the inmates which is solely between patient, their parents and their hospital and doctor. It stated that there are no professionally qualified staff such as doctors and nurses are employed by it in the above premises and there is no medical equipment for 'chemotherapy or radiation', normally provided for cancer patients or any other kind of medical intervention. It stated that cancer is a not contagious disease and the Assistant Medical Officer of 1st respondent inspected the premises on two occasions and confirmed this fact. Since no radiation or chemotherapy equipment is maintained at the above premises by 6th respondent, and since it does not provide medical facilities or services, 6th respondent states that there would be no ill affects of its activities on the neighbors such as petitioners. 15. It denied that its activity comes within the category "nursing home or health facility" and contended that its activity is on the lines of a "free night shelter or free house hold units or free dharmasala and any other" which is a 'permitted activity' in a residential zone as per the above G.O. It stated that it only functions as a "Home away from Home" for these unfortunate children and their needy families; and it merely facilitates and cases the inconvenience that is faced by families of children suffering from cancer, by providing a safe, secure and appropriate environment to them and their parents who come from far off places from treatment. 16. It stated that only basic facilities for children and their parents such as cots, beds, tables, chairs, utensils for cooking, play area etc., are made available by 6th respondent in the above premises and there are no other facilities prohibited under any law and this activity of 6th respondent is akin to "dharmasala/guest house" where needy children are given basic facilities during their treatment without any charge. 17. It also denied the assumption of the petitioners that the premises would provide accommodation for 54 people or 100 people and stated that the primary accommodation is only for patients of a maximum number of 18 and to accompanying parents or guardians for a short period. 18. 17. It also denied the assumption of the petitioners that the premises would provide accommodation for 54 people or 100 people and stated that the primary accommodation is only for patients of a maximum number of 18 and to accompanying parents or guardians for a short period. 18. It stated that the chances of hundred persons assembling there at any time, or the beds being filled to capacity at any given point of time, or there being a deluge of people and visitors, is virtually and definitely non-existent. It therefore stated that the assumptions made by petitioners of that their 'serenity and peace' would be disturbed by possible commotion or any kind of frenetic activity happening at the centre, is misplaced. It contended that overcrowding by large number of visitors, be they volunteers or donors, is never permitted as these children are immune-compromised and should not be unnecessarily exposed to too many people as that would cause infections. It stated that visitors are restricted and allowed only with prior permission and during visiting hours, and denied the allegations of the petitioners that there would be clogging of roads and possibility of accidents to their pets and children by such visits. 19. It also stated that it is equipped with all safety measures including gas detectors, fire alarms and fire extinguishers; that it has a safety and emergency manual created by it; regular emergency drills are conducted for staff and families and the Fire Department is involved in the awareness and training programmes for them; and the provisions of AP Fire Services Act, 1999 are not applicable to the subject property and there is no necessity of obtaining 'no objection certificate' from the authorities under the said Act. It also set out several precautions against fire hazards being taken by it in the subject premises. 20. It stated that apprehension of the petitioners that poor people trying to shelter under trees on streets or nominally existing foot path or the road itself, is nothing but a figment of the petitioners' active and extremely creative imagination, and that at no point would the 6th respondent take on more patients and their family than those it can provide shelter for. 21. It stated that it had 24 hours qualified professional security at the gates and there would be no security problem at all. 22. 21. It stated that it had 24 hours qualified professional security at the gates and there would be no security problem at all. 22. It also denied the contention of the petitioners that the activities of 6th respondent assumed the color of commercial activity or that these activities are dangerous or hazardous. 23. It pointed out that its premises in Mumbai, Calcutta and Delhi are located in residential zones and there have been no problems there. 24. The 6th respondent lastly contended that it had invested more than Rs. 70.00 lakhs in the premises for providing basic facilities and started providing shelter and counseling to the needy children in their premises and prayed that the Writ Petition be dismissed since the petitioners have tried to mislead the Court by misrepresenting the true facts. The 6th respondent has also filed annexures 1 to 10 as material papers to its counter affidavit. REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONERS 25. Reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavits filed by 1st respondent and the 6th respondent. In the reply affidavit, the petitioners contend that the website and annual report of 6th respondent indicate that the activities of 6th respondent include providing care centres for children battling with cancer and their parents/guardians, providing free residential accommodation, and quality and hygienic food to the underprivileged destitute children suffering with cancer and their parents/guardians, apart from counseling, education, interaction and recreation facilities and these activities would not come under the category of "night shelter or a guest house or a boarding house"; it is not open to 1st respondent to accept the explanation of 6th respondent at face value; it ought to have conducted enquiry into the affairs of 6th respondent for the purpose of examining whether the Zoning Regulations are being violated or not. It is further contended that the very investment of Rs. 70.00 lakhs by 6th respondent to provide a shelter in a rented accommodation should have created a suspicion in the mind of 1st respondent that the activities of 6th respondent are commercial in nature and its activities fall outside the permitted use categories in residential areas. It is also contended that 1st respondent should have taken into account existence of only a 30' road adjacent to the subject premises. 26. It is also contended that 1st respondent should have taken into account existence of only a 30' road adjacent to the subject premises. 26. In the reply affidavit filed to the counter of 6th respondent, similar pleas are raised and the stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition by the petitioner is reiterated. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS 27. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his oral submissions referred to G.O. Ms. No. 363 dt. 21-08-2010 and contended that the activity being carry on by 6th respondent would come in the category of nursing home/health facility which requires that not more than 20 beds can be put up for the said purpose in plots having 500 square meters area and abutting road of minimum 80 meters width. He reiterated the contentions raised by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended that this activity cannot be permitted for the reasons set out therein. He further contended that all other users not mentioned as per permitted users in a residential zone are prohibited. He contended that 1st respondent ought to have prohibited usage of the premises of 7th respondent by 6th respondent for use as nursing home/health facilities. 28. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme court of India in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1964)1 SCR 332 , Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)1 SCC 248 , Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 and Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011)1 SCC 694 and pointed out scope of Art. 21 of Constitution of India has been widened by the Supreme Court by including in it the right of privacy, right to have personal freedom, rest, physical happiness, peace of mind and security and that by allowing the activities of 6th respondent in the subject premises, these rights of petitioners are compromised/violated. 29. He also cited Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corpn (2013) 5 SCC 336 , Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 3 SCC 619 , R.K. Mittal v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 232 and contended that Planning and Zoning regulations framed under statutory powers have to be strictly enforced as they facilitate planned development in a manner benefiting all citizens. 30. 30. I have noted the submissions of both sides. THE CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT 31. The 6th respondent is a company registered under Section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 as a non-profit organization and it had entered into a registered lease deed with the children of the 7th respondent in respect of subject property consisting of cellar, ground and first floor for setting up a care centre. 32. The 6th respondent states that in this premises it is providing clean, safe and free residential accommodation for cancer afflicted children and their accompanying parents/relatives who are undergoing medical treatment in Hospitals/Institutions in Hyderabad. 33. Clause 5.1 of the lease deed mandates that 6th respondent uses the premises only for the above purpose and for not any other commercial purpose whatsoever. The 6th respondent in its counter has categorically asserted that no medical care or treatment of any nature is being provided in the subject premises and its activities are more on the lines of free night shelter or dharmasala. 34. This is reiterated by 6th respondent in its counter affidavit. Merely because in the annual report and website of 6th respondent, there is a mention that 6th respondent's activities include providing care centres for children battling with cancer and their parents/guardian, it cannot be presumed that such care centre would be used for providing treatment or medical intervention of any kind in the absence of any evidence in that regard being adduced by petitioners. 35. The 1st respondent officials have inspected said premises and have also concluded that the same is being used only as a child care centre. There is no evidence placed by petitioners that any medical treatment is being provided to inmates by 6th respondent. The 1st respondent, in it's inspection, also has not noticed any such activity. 36. No material has been placed by the petitioners to prove that any medical care or treatment or equipment relating thereto is being provided by 6th respondent in the subject premises. Therefore the plea of the petitioners that the activity of 6th respondent comes within the category of "nursing home/health facility" which is prohibited by Zonal regulations, cannot be accepted. 37. No material has been placed by the petitioners to prove that any medical care or treatment or equipment relating thereto is being provided by 6th respondent in the subject premises. Therefore the plea of the petitioners that the activity of 6th respondent comes within the category of "nursing home/health facility" which is prohibited by Zonal regulations, cannot be accepted. 37. The 6th respondent has asserted that it had entered into Memorandums Of Understanding with a few specialty cancer hospitals in Hyderabad under which, both 6th respondent and the respective hospital, vet and decide which of the pediatric cancer patients and their parents require a 'shelter' during their treatment visits and then only such children are assigned to 6th respondent. 38. These children are admitted to the hospitals during the period of treatment but have no place to go in the city during the gaps in the treatment owing to financial reasons and 6th respondent claims to provide these children and their parents a safe, clean place to stay, free rations of grains and nutritional supplements, transport to their hospital as well as recreational, educational and counseling support. Thus, 6th respondent is utilizing the subject premises only as a temporary residence of children suffering from cancer during treatment at city hospitals. 39. In my opinion, 1st respondent is right in taking a view that the activity of 6th respondent falls within the category of "boarding houses" and that it is also possible to categorize the activities of 6 respondent as dharmasala/guest house. 40. Cancer is not a contagious disease and the apprehensions of the petitioners that their health and happiness are affected or their serenity and peace would be disturbed, in my opinion, are clearly without basis. 41. Since accumulation of large number of people is likely to increase risk of infections to inmates in a facility of this nature, it is highly unlikely that very large numbers of people would be allowed in. The 6th respondent has assured in the counter affidavit filed by it that visitors are permitted only at particular timings and there is adequate security staff available to regulate the same. So there is no possibility of traffic jams and clogging of roads on account of visitors to the subject premises. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that provisions of the A.P. Public Safety (Measures) Enforcement Act, 2013 are not attracted. 42. So there is no possibility of traffic jams and clogging of roads on account of visitors to the subject premises. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that provisions of the A.P. Public Safety (Measures) Enforcement Act, 2013 are not attracted. 42. The provisions of the A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 apply only to building above 15m height and NOC under Sec. 13 thereof is necessary only for such buildings. The subject premises consists of cellar, ground and first floor only. Nowhere has the petitioner alleged that it's height is more than 15m. So neither the said Act nor rules framed there under have any application. The 6th respondent has also asserted that there are adequate fire safety measures in the premises. see no reason to disbelieve their assertion. 43. I do not agree with petitioners that the activity of 6th respondent amounts to a commercial activity. I am also of the opinion that the petitioners are exaggerating the alleged effect of the use of the subject premises by 6th respondent on their children or on themselves. 44. It is not doubt true that the Supreme Court of India has broadened the scope of Art. 21 as explained in Kharak Singh etc referred to in para 28 above. I am of the opinion that by allowing the 6th respondent to provide a non-medical child care centre in the subject premises, the fundamental right guaranteed to petitioners under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, is not violated. 45. Since I have come to the view that the activity of 6th respondent is a permitted activity as per Zonal Regulations and is not a prohibited activity, it cannot be said that 1st respondent is not enforcing the same. I therefore do not think it is necessary to deal with the decisions in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee etc set out in para 29 above. 46. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that the officials of 1st respondent shall ensure that 6th respondent does not use the subject premises for providing any medical treatment to the inmates admitted thereto by it. If 6th respondent were to violate this at any point of time, it is open to 1st respondent to initiate action against 6th respondent in accordance with law. If 6th respondent were to violate this at any point of time, it is open to 1st respondent to initiate action against 6th respondent in accordance with law. No costs. 47. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of. Petition dismissed