(1) The petitioner is a well - known builder in the twin - cities of hyderabad and secunderabad. Sri subhashan reddy, learned councel for the petitioner says, that the desire of the petitioner to follow the advice of 'vasthu silphi', sought and obtained at an inauspicious time, has landed him in the present predicament, the multi - storied complex constructed by him, comprising cellar, ground plus three floors, was ordered to be demolished by the municipal corporation of hyderabad, basing upon a direction issued by the state government. The building in question is situate at premises bearing municipal nos. 5 - 9 - 16, 17 and 18 opposite the state government secretariat. The extent of the area is 3,500 sq. Meters; it is in zone - 7, which extends from dr. Ambedkar statue to moazamzohi market. The front portion measuring from the road up to an extent of 150 ft. In the entire area falls within the 'commercial zone; and the rear portion is covered by 'recreational zone'. In the entire zone no. 7 construction of multi - storied buildings is prohibited. Any building constructed within the area ear - marked as recreational zone, shall be utilised only for recreational purposes, under the provisions of hyderabad urban development zoning regulations 1981 (for short, 'zoning regulations'). A multi - storied building is defined by regulation 2 (v) of the 'multi - storeyed building regulations, 1981; it 'means and includes all buildings with more than four floors (including the ground floor) or whose height is 15 metres or more,. ".

(2) The petitioner made an application to the municipal corporation of hyderabad on 7 - 1 - 1981 seeking permission to construct a multi - storied complex consisting of a ground floor plus three floors. The hyderabad municipal corporation, hyderabad, respondent no. 2 herein, asked him to part with 300 sq. Ft. For road - widening purpose without seeking any compensation and the petitioner readily complied with that condition. But his. Application was rejected on 24 - 9 - 81 on four grounds. Questioning that, he filed a suit, o. S. No. 4043/81, in the city civil court which ended in dismissal an appeal preferred against that also suffered the same fate. Thereafter, on, 26 - 3 - 83 he made a representation to the state government seeking waiver of the prohibition contained in the zoning regulations so as to enable him to construct a commercial complex in the area partly covered by the recreational zone and mostly covered by the commercial zone. After considering the representation of the petitioner, and after the site was inspected by the officials of the hyderabad urban development authority, municipal corporation and the hon'ble minister for municipal administration, the government passed an order on 28 - 1 - 1984 in memo no. 1220/i (1) /83 - 3 ma, which is as follows : "the special officer, mch, hyderabad, is requested to get the site under reference verified and the ownership of the site. He is also requested to state whether there. Are any encroachments on municipal or govt. Lands. After examining the above issues, he may consider proposals for ground+ 3 floors on merits as per bye - laws as the one is under prohibited) zone for multi - storied buildings. The spl. Officer, mch is requested to acknowledge the receipt of this memorandum. The municipal corporation, thereafter, in compliance with the aforesaid memo, issued a letter dated 9 - 11 - 84 calling upon the petitioner to remit the differential amount of rs. 29,353/ - for granting permission, after giving credit to the sum of rs. 33,965/ - which the petitioner paid at the time of application for permission to construct the building. Thus, the petitioner in all paid rs. 63,318/ - for obtaining permission from the municipal corporation. On 29 - 11 - 85 the municipal corporation granted a permit to the petitioner in permit no. 92/46 in file no. 312/tp/a3/81/805 to construct a commercial complex - cellar, ground - floor and three floors, subject to the following conditions: (1) the site should be restricted to 2700. 09 sq. Meters as per the ceiling exemption certificate. (2) a set - back of 23' - 03 "open space in the front and 18' - 03" in in the rear and on both sides, should be maintained. (3) the petitioner should not proceed with the construction beyond foundation till the elevation treatment is approved by the huda as per the undertaking by it on 22 - 11 - 85 and (4) parking space and drainways should be formed with asphalt carpet or cement concrete. The petitioner, in order to comply with condition no. 3, approached the hyderabad urban development authority by making a written request to which a reply was sent by the former on 12 - 1 - 87 stating that he should approach the municipal corporation, but that authority when approached by the petitioner, did not give any written reply. According to the petitioner, he was orally informed that it was the responsibility of the urban development authority to approv the elevation treatment. A written reminder issued by the petitioner on 4 - 2 - 87 to the municipal corporation did not evoke any response at all. At that stage, shri subhashan reddy says the petitioner contemplated the idea of making some alterations to the plans submitted by him, because of the advice tendered by a vasthu silphi. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner, on 12 - 3 - 87 submitted an application along with ths revised plans requesting the municipal corporation to grant permission for necessary alterations shown in the revised plans. The petitioner wanted to reduce the total floor space index from 51,737 sq. Ft to 40,406 st. Ft, besides reducing the original fsi ratio of 1. 25 to 1. 386. The petitioner also stated in his application dated 12 - 3 - 87 that "necessary permit fee and other fees are already paid by us at the time of our permission grained - vide permit no. 92/46 dated 29"!2 - 85. As per the revised proposals if any fee has to be paid by us it would be paid after hearing from you. The revised plans submitted by the petitioner on 12 - 3 - 87 were returned by the municipal corporation on 10 - 4 - 87 stating that the same, "cannot be considered as a valid application as the requisite fees has not been paid and "an attested copy of receipt of such payment has not been attached to the said application as envisaged under 3 - 4 and 5 - 1 of m. C. H. Building bye - laws of 1981. Hence the revised plans submitted by you are returned herewith unapproved. ". To this a reply was sent by the petitioner on 13 - 4 - 87 informing the commissioner of the municipal corporation that in all he paid rs. 63, 318/ - for a plinth area of 63,318 sq. Ft. And as he was reducing the area to 56,116 sq. Ft. The excess amount paid by him was rs. 7,202/ - and therefore he need not pay any further amount. As no reply was sent from the municipal corporation, for a period of thirty days, in response to his representation made on 13 - 4 - 87, the petitioner proceeded with the construction of the building in accordance with the revised plans taking advantage of the deeming provision under sec. 437 of the hyderabad municipal corporation act.

(3) A notice was issued by the municipal corporation on 11 - 6 - 76 seeking to demolish the building on the ground that the construction was unauthorised. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed writ petition no. "624/87 in this court, which was allowed by my learned brother, y. V. Anjaneyulu j. , on 15 - 6 - 87 with the following directions: "inasmuch as the petitioner has filed a reply to the show cause notice it is now for the respondent - municipal corporation to examine the contention of the petitioner that there is no unauthorised construction and the notice calling upon the demolition of the alleged unauthorised construction is uncalled for. The respondent - municipal corporation is directed to examine the petitioner's contention and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner to come to an appropriate conclusion whether in pursuance of the notice already issued there should be any demolition. Until a decision is communicated on the show cause notice the respondent corporation shall not demolish any part of the alleged unauthorised construction. If the petitioner desires to proceed with the construction while the enquiry is in progress he may do so at his own risk. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly". The petitioner went ahead with the construction at his own risk and completed the same. The building, as it stands now, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, consists of the cellar, ground floor and three floors. After hearing the contentions of the petitioner in compliance with the directions issued in the aforesaid writ petition, the commissioner. Municipal corporation, submitted a report to the state government on 19 - 8 - 87 informing that the petitioner committed certain violations in the construction of the building, and the violations are confined to six inches in respect of open space at the rear south in blocks c and d, and in all other respects, there were no violations at all. The commissioner, suo motu, posed the question, whether the revised plans submitted by the petitioner should be approved and then referred to the letter addressed by the government on 9 - 1 - 87 which was to the effect that "the petitioner's request should not be considered unless specific orders are obtained from the government for change of land use". The commissioner also mentioned that in the neighbouring area the government approved conversion of recreational zone into a commercial zone. The commissioner, therefore, recommended to the government that the petitioner may be permitted to change the land use, subject to the condition that: (1) he pays the difference of building fee and drainage development charges, as fixed by the municipal corporation, 2) he should withdraw the case from the court filed against the corporation; and 3) he should not make any further construction, unless and until final orders are specifically received from the government.

(4) The state govt. Reacted by issuing a confidential memo. No. 2206/m186/ - 1 dutcd 31 - 1 - 88 directing the municipal corporation to "take immediate necessary action to stop further construction of the building and also to bring the existing construction in conformity with zoning regulations. Prompt action should be taken in this regard and a compliance report should be sent to government within a fortnight'. The commissioner was also asked by the said memo "to ensure that no water and electricity connections are provided lo this building until the construction is brought in conformity with zoning regulations. " in compliance with the said memo, the commissioner, municipal corporation, sent a communication to the petitioner in letter mo. 16 to 18/9/5/8/1415 dated 6 - 9 - 88 stating, inter alia, that "in view of the above and in view of the government rejection of your request for relaxation, you are hereby directed to remove the construction which is constructed imauthorisedly in violation of the zoning regulations of 1981 within 24 hours; failing which the mch will take action under sec. 636 of hmc act, 1955, as per th: provisions and remove the same depart mentally as per the directions of the government issued in the reference first cited", (the reference being to government memo. No. 2206/m1/86 - 1 ma dated 31 - 8 - 88). This order was served on the petitioner on 6 - 9 - 88, according to the learned counsel at 3 - 30 pm. On the next day, that is, 7 - 9 - 88, the demolition work was commenced at 9 am itself even before the expiry of the 24 hours. Ob a special mention by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was taken up by my learned brother, kodandaramayya j. , for admission on 7 - 9 - 88 and an interim stay was granted. The deputy registrar of this court was asked to accompany the counsel for the petitioner and inform the municipal authorities about the orders passed by this court. Accordingly the deputy registrar went to the spot and orally conveyed the orders of this court to the authorities of the municipal corporation at 11 - 15 am on 7 - 9 - 88, who were engaged in the demolition work. By that time already a part of the building was demolished - parts of roof, windows and walls.

(5) Sri subhashan reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the action against the petitioner was initiated vindictively. Having issued the order on 28 - 1 - 84 granting relaxation in favour of the petit ioner in regard to change of land use, based upon which the municipal corporation granted a valid permit on 29 - 11 - 85, it is not open to the government to take the stand that there was no valid order in favour of the petitioner regarding the change of land use. Having granted permission pursuant to the memo of the government dated 28 - 1 - 84, it is not open to the municipal corporation to take action for demolition. When no communication was issued by the corporation within thirty days subsequent to the submission of the revised plans on 13 - 4 - 87, the petitioner is entitled to proceed with the construction by virtue of the provisions of sec. 437 of the hyderabad municipal corporation act, submits the counsel for the petitioner. Only in trivial respects, says the counsel, the petitioner departed from the revised plans submitted on 10 - 4 - 87 and the demolition of the entire building is per se arbitrary, being violative of article 14 of the constitution. The learned counsel also submits that there was absolutely no health hazard; the public in the vicinity did not feel any inconvenience and no complaint whatsoever was made to the authorities by the neighbours in the locality and therefore, the building should not be demolished.

(6) Contesting these submissions, sri dharma rao, learned government pleader says that the memo dated 28. 1. 84 did not authorise the change of land use. On the other hand, a special procedure, submits the counsel, is laid down in the zoning regulations and as the government memo dated 28 - 1 - 84 was not issued in compliance with the procedure laid down in the zoning regulations, the petitioner is not entitled to take any advantage. Sri rama rao, learned counsel for the municipal corporation, respondent no. 2, contends that the procedure laid down in the zoning regulations i's mandatory; non - compliance of the same renders any order passed void. The petitioner is not entitled to any notice before the impugned order was issued. He went ahead with the construction of the building at his own risk and that the judgment of this court in wp no. 7624/87 was fully complied with in that, effective opportunity was given to the petitioner to state his case and only thereafter the request for change of land use was rejected, the action for demolition of the building was taken under s, 42 of the a. P, urban areas (development) act, 1975, and there is no provision in that act which entitles the petitioner to seek for condonation of any lapse. The counsel finally contends that as the construction of the building in question is in a prohibited area, there is no option except to demolish the building. So far as the deeming provision contained in sec. 437of the hyderabad municipal corporation act is concerned, mr. Ramarao says, the same is of no avail to the petitioner since that provision comes to the rescue of persons who construct buildings in accordance with law ; bye - law no. 17. 8 specifically enjoins that no proposed construction shall contravene any of the zoning regulations but the same was breached by the petitioner in the present case. section 440 (1) (b) of the hyderabad municipal corporation act specifically lays down that any person to take advantage of the deeming provision under sec. 437 should issue a notice to the city engineer about his intention to proceed with the construction and within seven days from the issue of such notice the construction should be commenced. As no such notice was issued by the petitioner, he cannot take advantege of sec. 437.

(7) The society for preservation of environment and quality of life, hyderabad, has filed wpmp no. 3906/89, for impleading itself as respondent no. 3. Sri ganu, learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid society contends that the building constructed by the petitioner is in violation of zoning regulations; the order passed by the government in memo no. 1220/1 (l) /83 - 3 ma dated 28. 1. 84 is clearly illegal since the procedural requirements have not been complied with before it was passed, and therefore, this court cannot exercise its discretion in order to enforce an illegal order.

(8) As alredy noticed the government memo dated 28 - 1 - 84 was issued on a specific representation made on 26 - 3 - 83 by the petitioner requesting exemption in regard to change of land use. Reference no. 1 in the said memo mentions the representation of the petitioner dated 26 - 3 - 83, and the subject - part of the memo clearly says, "change of laud use from recreational use zone to commercial use one in p. No. 5 - 9 - 16 to 18 of saifabad". The said memo directs the special officer, mch. Hyderabad, to verify 1) the ownership of the site; and 2) whether there are any encroachments of municipal or government lands. After such verification, the commissioner is directed to "consider proposals for ground+ 3 floors on merits as per bye - laws, as the one is under prohibited zone for multi - storied buildings". The building in question is not a multistoried building, as already noticed, it is not the case of the municipal corporation or the government that there is any dispute in regard to the ownership or that the petitioner had encroached upon any municipal or government land. The commissioner was, therefore, under an obligation to consider the application of the petitioner on merits, as per bye - laws. It is true that bye - law no. 17. 8 specifically says that "no proposed construction shall contravene any of the zoning regulations. " the master plan is prepared under sec. 6 of the a. P. Urban areas (development) act, 1975 which inter alia, defines the various zones into which the development area may be divided and it indicates the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed tg be used. Simultaneously with the preparation of master plan or as soon as may be thereafter the authority shall proceed with the preparation of zonal development plan for each of the zones into which the development area may be divided. Subsection (2) of sec. 12 confers power on the government to make any modifications to the plan. Sub - section (3) of sec. 12 lays down that before making any modifications, the government shall publish a notice in the prescribed form inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the proposed modifications and only after considering the objections and suggestions a decision has to be taken.

(9) In the present case, it is not in dispute that the aforesaid procedure has not been followed. Does the failure to follow the procedure render the memo dated 28 - 1 - 84 void? the answer, in my view, is in the negative. Nonconformity with the procedural requirements would not render the exercise of statutory power void, and the order passed cannot be said to be nullity, bereft of any legal validity. No one has questioned the government memo dated 28 - 1 - 84 so far. The municipal corporation, acting upon the memo and after considering all the other necessary requirements, granted permit to the petitioner on 29 - 11 - 85. The validity of that permit also was not doubled by any one. It is, therefore, not open to the learned government pleader now to contend that the memo dated 28 - 1 - 84 was not intented to be acted upon, and the same is void. The power and jurisdiction of the government to modify the plan and grant relaxation is not in doubt. Non - complince with the procedural requirements would not vitiate the exercise of power in the absence of any challenge to the same. Having issued the memo dated 28 - 1 - 84 in exercise of its undoubted power and jurisdiction and even without revoking the same it is not open to the government to contend that the memo is invalid. No such plea has been taken in the counter - affidavit and no orders, have either been passed or action initiated to revoke or cancel the aforesaid memo.

(10) The commissioner has stated in the report submitted by him on 19 - 8 - 87 that

"in the neighbouring area the government have approved the conversion of recreational zone into local commercial zone"

. There are several multistoried, high rise buildings in the area in respect of which either relaxations were granted earlier or construction was completed before the zoning regulations of 1981 came into force. It is only in respect of this building the question has arisen. The width covered by recreational zone is only 75 ft. And the width covered by the commercial zone is 175 ft. Obviously taking these factors into consideration the government thought that there was no need to call for any objections in compliance with the procedural requirements. Above all, before this memo was issued, the officials of huda, municipal corporation and the hon'ble minister for municipal administration inspected the site, and as a result of all this the memo was issued. After this memo was issued, permit was issued by the municipal corporation on 29 - 11 - 85, and thereafter the petitioner did not make any representation seeking any relaxation in respect of change of land use. There was no further communication to the petitioner that it was not the intention of the government to grant relaxation in respect of change of land use. In such circumstances, lam unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the state government and the learned counsel for the intervenor that the memo should be declared void. The following rulings cited by mr. Ganu, learned counsel for the intervenor, have no application to the case on hand. Venkateshwara rao vs. Govt. Of a. P. (1966 sc 828) , a. M. Mani vs. State of electricity board (1968 kerala 76) and a. Ramulu vs. Deputy commissioner of excise, hyderabad (1965 a. P. 20).

(11) Having granted permission on 29 - 11 - 85, based upon the government memo dated 28 - 1 - 84, it is not open to the municipal corporation of hyderabad, to once again request the state government to grant relaxation of change of land use. In the impugned notice dated 6 - 9 - 88, the reference to the request of the petitioner for relaxation is factually incorrect. At no point of time subsequent to 28 - 1 - 84 the petitioner made any representation seeking relaxation. The only representation made by him was on 26 - 3 - 83 which had resulted in the passing of the memo dated 28 - 1 - 84.

(12) The revised plans were submitted by the petitioner on 12 - 3 - 87 which were returned by the municipal corporation on 10 - 4 - 87 on the ground that requisite fee has not been paid as prescribed under 3. 4 and 5. 1 of the building bye - laws, 1981. While submitting the revised plans on 12 - 3 - 87 the petitioner specifically stated that necessary permit fee and other fees were already paid at the time of granting of permit dated 29 - 12 - 85 and that if any fee still is to be paid as per the revised proposals the same would be paid after hearing from the corporation. To this a reply was sent by the corporation on 10 - 4 - 87 stating that the petitioner has not paid the requisite permit fee as envisaged under 3. 4 and 5. 1 of building bye - laws. Bye - law 3. 2 speaks of an obligation to submit an application in writing in the prescribed form which may be obtained from the corporation on payment of prescribed fee. Bye - law 3. 4 says that no application referred to in bye - law - 3. 2 shall be valid unless and until the person giving the application has paid fees to the authority bye - law 5 - 1. Says that no application for buiding permit shall be deemed valid unless and until the person giving notice has paid fee as per bye - law no. 5 - 2. The scales of fees for building permit shall be as decided by the authority. As the petitioner has re - submitted the revised plans, bye - law nos. 3 4 and 5. 1 have no application the correct bye - law that is applicable is bye - law no. 5. 2 (c) which says, that in respect of the revised plans, resubmitted within a period of sixmonths, no permit fee shall be chargeable ; in other cases, 50% of the original permit fee shall be chargeable. It is not possible for the petitioner to compute how much money he should pay under bye - law no. 5. 2 (c). Various amounts are required to be paid to the municipal corporation, like drainage cess, building permit fee, huda charges for external and internal development. The permit fee is only one component of the total amount liable to be paid by the petitioner. How much would be the permit fee was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. The corporation officials alone are the competent persons to determine that. When the petitioner specifically sought information as regards the amount to be paid by him in respect of the revised plans submitted, the corporation officials ought to have given a specific reply, instead of vaguely referring to certain bye - laws, which have no application at all. I must say in this context that it is the practice of the municipal corporation to inform an applicant the amount of fees he is liable to pay and the specific "head of account" under which the fee is payable for obtaining necessary building permit. Copies of earlier orders issued by the municipal corporation in similar matters placed before me would clearly reveal this.

(13) There is no provision under the hyderabad municipal corporation act, specifically authorising a person to submit revised plans. Section 428 which deals with submission of plans in the first instance applies to cases of re submission also, and about this legal position there is no dispute. Section 437 says that within 30 days after receipt of notice under s. 428, if the commissioner fails to communicate in writing to the person who has given the notice his disapproval of the building or work, the said person may, at any time, within one year from the date of the delivery of the notice to the commissioner proceed with the construction in accordance with his intention described in the notice or in any of the documents submitted by him, but such construction shall not contravene any of the previsions of the act or any bye - laws made under the act. The petitioner sent a reply on 13 - 4 - 87 informing that he has already paid the fee at the time of obtaining the original permit on 29 - 11 - 85, and therefore, he was not liable to make any further payment. The thirty - days period specified in s. 437 has to be reckoned from 13 - 4 - 87. The petitioner having not heard anything from the municipal corporation within thiitydays from 13 - 4 - 87 went ahead with the construction. S. 440 (1) (b) of the act lays down that no person shall commence construction unless he has given notice to the city engineer of the proposed date of commencement, and if the commencement does not take place within seven clear days, the notice shall be deemed not to have been given. The requirement of notice under s. 440 is a general requirement applicable to every case ; it is not confined to particular cases governed by s. 437. It is admitted that the petitioner has not given notice under s. 440 (1) (b). It is also not in dispute that this provision is not being complied with by any one seeking building permissions. Further, no such plea has been taken, either in the counter or in the additional counter filed by the respondent - corporation. In such circumstances, the failure on the part of the petitioner to issue notice under section 440 (1) (b) will not disentitle him to take advantage of the provisions of sec. 437 of the act. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled, in the particular circumstances of the case, to proceed with the construction after expiry to the thirty days time limit reckoning from 13 - 4 - 87.

(14) The building, as constructed by the petitioner, it is contended by sri ramarao, learned counsel for the corporation, is not in accordance with the revised plans submitted by him. In the report submitted by the commissioner, municipal corporation, to the government on 19 - 8 - 87 the extent of the violation mentioned was very trivial. The complex consists of four blocks, a, b, c and d. As all the blocks are inter - connected, the extent of violations shall be viewed cumulatively. In his report, the commissioner ha stated that in respect of the rear south, the violation was only to the extent of six inches regarding open space. In the additional counter - affidavit filed by the commissioner, it is stated that there have been large scale violations in respect of each of the blocks. The additional counter admits that the four blocks abcd are inte rconnected and therefore, in my view, the question of violations should not be viewed with reference to each of the blocks and that was the reason why the previous commissioner in his report has taken a cumulative view of the extent of violations.

(15) Sri ramarao, learned counsel for the corporation says that by the time the report was submitted by the commissioner on 19 - 8 - 87 to the state government requesting them to grant exemption the building had not been constructed and that was the reasom why at several places the commissioner mentioned that the proposals are in violation of the building plan. Sri subhashan reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contests this statement and says that even by the date of submission of report by the commissioner on 19 - 8 - 87, the construction of the entire ground - floor and the three floors was completed except at the south - east corner which is the subject - matter of the dispute in question and in respect of which revised plans were submited. The rest of the work, like masonry, carpentry, flooring were not taken up and, (herefore, there was no difficulty in examining the question as to in what respects the building constructed did not accord with the revised plans. In the report dated 19 - 8 - 87 the violations noticed by the commissioner were trivial to the extent of only six inches. I find considerable force in this submission. The expression proposed building used in the commissioner's report dated 19 - 8 - 87 means ''constructed building

", as by then the petitioner has already taken advantage of the deeming provision under section 437 of the hyderabad municipal corporation act and went ahead with the construction. It is clear the words"

proposed building' were used by the commissioner in the context of the revised plans in contradiction to the original plans.

(16) The zonal development plan was modified by the government by g. O ms. No. 805 - ma dated 15 - 9 - 87 as a result of which, the petitioner's site to an extent of 197 feet measured from the road margin falls within the commercial zone and the rest of it - 28 feet width - falls in "religious and public purpose zone". This is clear from the certified copy of the modified development plan furnished to the petitioner by hud a. Sri ramarao, the learned counsel for the corporation disputes the authenticity of the plan and says that according to the plan furnished to him by the municipal corporation, the commercial zone is less than the zone left for religious and public building purposes. It is rather surprising as to how the same authority - huda - could furnish two different plans. This is a matter for the authority concerned to look into and rectify.

(17) In my view the memo dated 28 - 1 - 84 clearly grants relaxation with regard to the land use in favour of the petitioner. No objection whatsoever was raised by any one. It is, therefore not open to the municipal corporation to take action for demolition of the building on the ground that it was constructed in a prohibited zone, under the act. No member of the public was aggrieved by the relaxation. No circumstance was brought to my notice; nor is there anything in the record to show that publ'c safety is, in any manner, endagered or the public is subjected to any inconvenience by reason of the construction of the building by the petitioner. The petitioner has not committed any dishonest or fraudulent act. In analogous circumstances, the supreme court in mis rajatha enterprises vs. S. K. Sharma and others (1989 (1) scale. 277) ruled that the demolition is totally unwarranted.

(18) The building, as constructed by the petitioner, it appears, does not accord with the revised plans submitted by him. In what respects and to what extent there is discrepancy, cannot be specifically ascertained from the record placed before me. The report of the municipal commissioner submitted to the government on 19 - 8 - 87 states that the discrepancies are very trivial whereas, in the additional counter several large scale discrepancies have been mentioned. Merely because the building constructed, in some respects, is in violation of the revised plans submitted by him it would be totally arbitrary and unreasonable to order its demolition.

(19) The confidential memo no. 2206/m1/86 - 1 dated 31 - 8 - 88 (pursuant to which the impugned order was issued) conflicts with the earlier memo dated 28 - 1 - 84 granting relaxation with regard to the land use. Both are irreconciliable. The latter does not cancel the earlier one, nor makes any reference to it.

(20) The action of the government smacks of vindictiveness: it lacks legality and legitimacy. By issuing the confidential direction dated 9 - 1 - 87 to the municipal commissioner :

"that the petitioner's request should not be considered unless specific orders are obtained from the government for change of land use"

, it forestalled him from taking an independent decision on merits. The municipal commissioner was under a great pressure to raze the huge structure comprising a plinth area of 40, 406 square feet. The impugned notice dated 6 - 9 - 88 was served on the petitioned at 3 - 30 pm on that date calling upon him to demolish the entire structure within 24 hours, a task impossible of compliance for a private citizen. What is more revolting to judicial conscience is the indecent haste with which the demolition work was commenced at 9 am on 7 - 9 - 88 by scores of municipal employees backed by police force, even before the expiry of the 24 hours time limit. The purpose is transparent - to pre - empt the petitioner from obtaining stay orders from a competent court of law. It is hard to come across parallel instances of such menacing display of executive power.

(21) In the result, the government memo no. 2206/m1/86 - 1 dated 31 - 8 - 88 and the consequential order issued by the municipal corporation on 6 - 9 - 88, are set aside and the writ petition is all owed, with the following directions : (a) within four weeks from the date of recei t of this order, the commissioner, municipal corporation of hyderabad, shall inform the petitioner the permit fee liable to be paid under bye - law 5. 2 (c) , a nd within ten days thereafter the same shall be paid. (b) the commissioner, municipal corporation of hyderabad, after notice to the petitioner, shall inspect the building in question, and if the building is found to be in violation of the revised plans submitted by the petitioner, action should be taken for levying compounding fee. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee rs. 250/ -