IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26329 of 2007 Between: Mohammed Abdul Razaak Qamar S/o.Late Shaik Dawood R/o.Himayatnagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation circle -VI, Rep.by its Commissioner, Hyderabad 2 The Vamsi Developers, rep.by its Managing partner Sri M.Y.Maharshi,C/o. M.Y.M.Technologies Ltd, M.Y.M.Money Centre, Door No.3-6-269, 4th floor, Opp:Telugu Academy, Himayatnagar Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particualrly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not taking action against the 2nd respondent by restraining him from making any illegal, and unauthorized constrcutions by deviating the approved plan at building bearing Municipal Nos.3-6-269, 3-6-269/A, 3-6- 269/B, situated at Himayatnagar, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to ensure not to make any illegal, or unauthorzed constructions by the 2nd respondent at the said building and demolish the illegal, constrcutions made by the 2nd respondent recently and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : O R D E R : This writ petition has been filed by Mohammed Abdul Razaak Qamar assailing the inaction of the 1st respondent- Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad on the representation submitted by him with regard to unauthorized constructions made by the 2nd respondent-Vamsi Developers rep. By its Managing Director. Despite notice to 2nd respondent, 2nd respondent did not chose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent-GHMC. 1st respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that necessary action has been taken with regard to removal of constructions made by 2nd respondent by deviating the sanction plan. Para 6 of the counter affidavit reads as under: “ 6. As stated supra, acting upon the complaint made by the petitioner the respondent Corporation has removed the deviations as stated supra and as on today no further construction is going on. As and when any complaint about further construction is received/noticed the respondent Corporation would initiate appropriate steps.” Since action has been taken by 1st respondent basing on the report submitted by the petitioner, no further direction need be issued. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as redundant. No costs. 8th July, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.26329 OF 2007 8TH JULY 2008.