IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 7464 of 2008 Between: M/s.Sri Vishnu Builders, rep.by its Managing partner B.A.R.K.Varma,S/o.B.Narasimha Raju D.No.49-26-59,Flat No.CF-1,Vishnu Residency Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam-16 ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam, rep.by its Commissioner, Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENT 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 issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent in not sanctioning/approving the building plan submitted for approval vide BA.No.10742/2006/ACP-II dated 15.4.2006 in respect of the building in Sy.No.38/1 & 2 D.No.50- 57-10 Rajendranagar, Resavanipalem ,Div.No.28 Visakhapatnam as per the Rules is highly arbitrary, unjust unfair and violative of Articcle 14,19,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to sanction final approval forthwith. pass Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.S.Murthy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri N.Ranga Reddy The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted questioning the inaction of the respondent- Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in passing approval orders on the application submitted by the petitioner on 15th April 2006 for construction of a building in Survey Nos. 38/1 and 2, D.No. 50-57-10, Rajendranagar, Resavanipalem, Division No. 28, Visakhapatnam. When this writ petition came up before this Court on 4th April 2008, Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation took notice and sought time to obtain instructions. Today, the learned Standing Counsel, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner has remitted the requisite fee for ensuring clearance of debris and building material only on 10th April 2006 and thereafter, on 17th July 2007, it has remitted rest of the requisite fee and still the other conditions, which are required to be complied with by the petitioner for its application to be processed and taken up for consideration, have not been complied with. However, Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has never shirked its responsibility to comply with all such requirements, which are insisted upon in terms of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and the building regulations and all other allied Acts, provided, the Corporation communicates its decision in that regard, the same are bound to be complied with. In this fact situation, it is appropriate that the respondent – Corporation shall pass detailed order on the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to erect a building at the premises mentioned therein, within a period of 15 days from today, at any rate before 15th May 2008. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 21st April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}