ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in issuing letter No.8006/ACP/TPS/C9A/GHMC/2015-16, dated 26.04.2016, in returning the BPS application on the ground that BPS-2008 has been closed without explaining the reasons as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule-6 of A.P. Regularization and Penalization of unauthorizedly constructed buildings and building constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan, Rules 2007 and for consequential relief. 2. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 (GHMC). 3. Brief facts of the case as averred in writ affidavit are that petitioner No.2 purchased a house consisting of Ground + 2 upper floors, bearing Nos.1-7-572/4/B and 1-7-572/4/B/1, situated at Ramalingeswara Street, Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’), under registered sale deeds bearing Nos.505 of 1996, dated 07.03.1996 and 1406 of 1997, dated 28.08.1997, respectively; that since the building was very old, petitioners could not verify the sanctioned plan and later found that there was deviation in the construction made by their vendors. He further submitted that the Government Andhra Pradesh issued Ordinance No.15/07, dated 31.12.2007, to regularize and penalize the unauthorized constructions/deviations as one time measure and framed Rules, 2007 and as per Rule 3, the application for regularization has to be submitted with required documents and Demand Draft for Rs.20,000/- or 50% of the Assessed amount, whichever is lower of total penalization amount, within 90 days from the date of notification and the balance 50% amount shall be paid not beyond 6 months from the date of application. 4. 4. It is further averred that petitioners submitted an application on 30.04.2008 vide application No.BPS/8006/CZ/09/08, by enclosing cheque for Rs.20,000/-, for regularization of unauthorized building; that respondents after scrutiny, addressed a letter dated 16.10.2009, directed the petitioners to submit three documents and accordingly, petitioners submitted the same; that respondents assessed the penalization amount and informed the petitioners to pay balance amount of Rs.1,60,000/- towards total penalization charges and accordingly, the same was paid by the petitioners through Demand Draft; that though the application was filed in the month of April, 2008, the application was not considered in terms of Rule 6 and that when the petitioners approached respondents officials, they informed the petitioners to submit TSLR and location sketch of the subject house and the same were submitted by petitioners on 21.07.2011; however, respondents did not consider the application submitted by the petitioners contrary to Rule 6 and as there was delay in the action of respondents, petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P.No.33239 of 2015. 5. It is further averred that after filing the writ petition, the Town Planning Assistant inspected the building on 02.11.2015 and informed the petitioners to submit revised plan vide proceedings dated 02.11.2015. Accordingly, revised plan was submitted by the petitioner on 21.03.2016, however, instead of regularizing the building, respondents vide letter dated 26.04.2016, informed that application cannot be considered, since the building penalization scheme (BPS-2008) has been closed and returned the application. Aggrieved by the same, present Writ Petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 31.01.2008, respondents supposed to regularize the building by collecting penal charges and as per the scheme, the entire process ought to have been completed within a period of six months, but, the respondents intentionally delayed the application and after filing W.P.No.33239 of 2015, respondents returned the application arbitrarily contrary to the scheme. 7. Counter has been filed on behalf of respondents stating that petitioners filed an application for regularization of the building consisting of ground+3 upper floors, whereas, existing structure is of ground + 2 upper floors and water tank on the terrace of the 2 nd floor. It is further averred that on verification of application, respondents corporation has noticed shortfall of documents and the same was intimated to the petitioners and the said documents were submitted by the petitioners along with demand draft of Rs.1,60,000/-. It is further averred that on verification of application, respondents corporation has noticed shortfall of documents and the same was intimated to the petitioners and the said documents were submitted by the petitioners along with demand draft of Rs.1,60,000/-. On inspection, the respondents’ corporation found that petitioners have misrepresented to the GHMC, by submitting the application for regularization of ground + 3 upper floors, though there was only ground + 2 upper floors on ground. It is further averred that the Government of Telangana has introduced Building Regularization Scheme-2015 under G.O.Ms.No.152 MA, on 02.11.2015 for regularization of building constructed unauthorizedly and in deviation to the sanctioned plan and also given opportunity to the applicants of pending applications submitted under earlier BPS-2008 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901 MA dated 31.12.2007, through online on or before 31.12.2015 and the said deadline was extended up to 01.03.2016; that the petitioners were informed to submit revised plan under BRS-2015 for regularization, but the petitioners submitted the BRS application 21.03.2016 after expiry of deadline that to manually instead of submitting through online and since the scheme was already closed and the application could not be entertained, the revised plan was returned vide letter dated 26.04.2016. It is further averred that present writ petition has been filed by suppressing the above facts and therefore, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that W.P.No.33239 of 2015 filed by the petitioners was dismissed as infructuous and no application is pending with the respondents’ corporation for consideration. He further submitted that the application dated 21.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered as the same was filed after the expiry of stipulated period and was filed manually instead of filing through online and therefore, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of any merit. CONSIDERATION: 9. Petitioners filed an application on 30.04.2008, vide reference No.BPS/8006/CZ/09/08, by duly enclosing cheque for Rs.20,000/-, for regularization of the unauthorized structures raised by the petitioners. The respondents Corporation after scrutiny, noticed shortfall of documents and accordingly, addressed a letter dated 16.10.2009, informing the petitioner to submit three documents and the petitioners submitted the said documents and also paid an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- through multiple Demand Drafts. The respondents Corporation after scrutiny, noticed shortfall of documents and accordingly, addressed a letter dated 16.10.2009, informing the petitioner to submit three documents and the petitioners submitted the said documents and also paid an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- through multiple Demand Drafts. As the application was pending for long time and aggrieved by the inordinate delay, petitioners filed W.P.No.33239 of 2015 to consider the application and pass appropriate Orders. Subsequent to filing of the writ petition, officials of respondent Corporation, inspected the subject property on 02.11.2015 and found that the existing building consists of Ground + 2 upper floors and overhead tank on terrace, whereas, petitioners submitted application for regularization of Ground + 3 upper floors, which is contrary to the structures existing on ground. The respondents Corporation vide letter dated 29.12.2015, informed the petitioners to submit application along with revised plan showing the existing building as per ground position i.e., Ground + 2 upper floors along with enclosures as required under G.O.Ms.No.152 MA, dated 02.11.2015, by duly providing details of earlier BPS application and Demand Drafts. However, petitioners submitted an application on 21.03.2016, after expiry of BRS – 2015 i.e., 01.03.2016, manually instead of filing through online. The respondents Corporation vide letter dated 26.04.2016, returned the application dated 21.03.2016, submitted by the petitioners stating that the old BPS – 2008, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901 MA, dated 31.12.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.112 MA, dated 31.01.2008 was closed and no application can be entertained under said G.O and therefore, the revised plan submitted by the petitioners manually for regularization of unauthorized structures under BPS – 2008 cannot be considered. 10. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that application for regularization of unauthorized construction has been made under BPS – 2008, as informed by the respondents Corporation vide letter dated 29.12.2025, petitioners have submitted revised plan and the said revised plan has to be considered under BPS – 2008 and therefore, the respondents committed error in returning the application on the ground that old BPS – 2008 was closed and that no application can be entertained under said G.O. 11. Learned Counsel for petitioners further contended that petitioners filed the application under BPS – 2008 within time and for delay and laches on the part of respondents Corporation, petitioners cannot be penalized, more so, when BPS – 2008 stipulated a time period of 6 months for scrutiny and processing of application submitted for regularization. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondents taken a stand that revised application was submitted after expiry of BRS – 2015 that to manually instead of filing through online mode and therefore, the same cannot be entertained. 12. It is relevant to note that rejection of application submitted under BRS – 2015, is not the subject matter of present writ petition and therefore, there is no necessity to delve into the said issue. 13. A careful reading of the impugned letter dated 26.04.2016, reveal that revised plan submitted by the petitioners has been returned on the ground that BPS – 2008 has been closed and therefore, no application can be entertained under said G.O. It is appropriate to note that petitioners have not submitted fresh application under BPS – 2008 Scheme, but in fact, submitted revised plan as per the letter dated 29.12.2015 of respondents Corporation, wherein the petitioners were informed to submit revised plan, as per the structures existing on the ground. Thus, the revised plan submitted by the petitioners is in furtherance of letter dated 29.12.2015, to rectify the discrepancies pointed by the respondents Corporation and shall be treated as fresh application under BPS – 2008. 14. It is also relevant to note that the application submitted by the petitioners on 30.04.2008, under BPS – 2008 has not been rejected and petitioners were directed to submit revised plan as per the structures existing on ground and thus, it has to be construed that application has been pending for consideration and respondents Corporation ought to have entertained the revised plan and pass appropriate Orders in terms of BPS – 2008 Scheme. 15. As per the BPS 2008 Scheme, the application submitted for regularization was supposed to be processed within a period of six months, however, no steps have been taken by the respondents Corporation to process the application filed by the petitioners, contrary to the time period stipulated under the Scheme. 15. As per the BPS 2008 Scheme, the application submitted for regularization was supposed to be processed within a period of six months, however, no steps have been taken by the respondents Corporation to process the application filed by the petitioners, contrary to the time period stipulated under the Scheme. Further, an official from the respondents Corporation has inspected the subject property only after the filing of the writ petition by the petitioners vide W.P.No.33239 of 2015 and a letter dated 29.12.2015 was addressed to petitioners pointing out discrepancies and informed the petitioners to file revised plan, however, by that time, new BRS – 2015 Scheme was came into existence and in the letter dated 29.12.2015, except saying that BPS – 2008 was closed, no other reasons were assigned for returning the revised plan. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the respondents Corporation that revised plan cannot be entertained in view of closure of BPS – 2008 is unsustainable. 16. In the light of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter dated 26.04.2016 is set aside and respondent Corporation is directed to consider the revised plan and pass appropriate Orders strictly in accordance with BPS – 2008 Scheme, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901 MA, dated 31.12.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.112 MA, dated 31.01.2008 and rules framed thereunder and also the directions given by a Division Bench of this Court in WP (PIL) No. 63 of 2016, dated 18.10.2016 , within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.