HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.31572 of 2010
Date: June 16, 2014
Between:
M/s. Big Byte Bakers, Rep. by its proprietor Barkat Ali, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner And
1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by Commissioner, Hyderabad & 2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.31572 of 2010
O R D E R:
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
2. The petitioner purchased property in premises No.8-3- 798/3, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, which is part of Nalamada House, in the year 1994 and established a bakery in the said premises. There is sufficient parking space available for parking vehicles. But respondents 1 and 2 have taken over a part of the said place for the purpose of road widening and a foot path was formed in the said place in the year 2004. While so, a notice was issued on 19.04.2010 stating that customers/visitors of their bakery are parking their vehicles on the road which is causing traffic obstruction as well as posing threat to the VIPs moving on the road and they were instructed to ensure that no vehicle is parked on the road in front of their bakery. The 2nd respondent again issued a notice on 28.10.2010 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) stating that there is no sufficient parking space and sought explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation stating that a valet parking space is available at stilt floor and sufficient arrangements were made for parking vehicles. It is the case of the petitioner that sufficient arrangements were made for parking vehicles and no inconvenience is caused to the general public.
3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter-affidavit stating that the erstwhile MCH accorded building permission for the proposed construction of stilt + 3 upper floors for residential building at suit schedule property on a plot area of 397 square yards on 18.06.1993 under Permit No.432/15. They also admit that road was widened on the main road of Srinagar Colony in the year 2004 and the existing 40 feet road was widened to 60 feet. They also admit that a notice was issued under Section 452 of the Act for lack of parking space for the commercial establishment by proceedings dated 28.10.2010 to which the petitioner submitted its explanation stating that it was running business since 16 years and the petitioner got sanction for stilt floor parking and parking is available in the stilt floor. It is also their case that a residential building was converted into a commercial area and as per the present norms, 40% parking space is required to be maintained for commercial establishments. In view of the same, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered and action was initiated by serving a final notice under Section 636 of the Act on 22.11.2010 which was served on the petitioner on 02.12.2010.
4. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 11.02.2012, declaring the Srinagar Colony main road from Satya Sai Nigamagamam connecting to Panjagutta main road as commercial road under category ‘B’ as per G.O.Ms.No.766, MA, dated 18.10.2007. The petitioner also states that he employed two security personnel to see that no vehicle is parked on the road opposite to its shop and arrangement was made for a valet parking also.
5. The notice issued under Section 636 of the Act dated 22.11.2010 reads as though the petitioner has not submitted any explanation. The said notice also gives an option to the petitioner to provide sufficient parking or to make valet parking for the business establishment. Curiously, the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 states that the petitioner has submitted its explanation, whereas the notice under Section 636 of the Act says that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation.
6. In the circumstances, the impugned notice dated 22.11.2010 issued under Section 636 of the Act is set aside and it is open for respondents 1 and 2 to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and also after hearing the petitioner appropriate orders can be passed.
7. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: June 16, 2014 BSB
2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.31572 of 2010
Date: June 16, 2014
BSB