IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9447 of 2009 Between: A. Hemath Kumar, S/o. M.A. Gajaraj Naidu, R/o.H.No.1-2-29, Flat No.202, PPR Vykuntam, Domalguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its City Planner. 3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle 12, Rep. by its Divisional & Asst. City Planner, Chandanagar, Sherilingampally, Hyderabad. 4 Inspector of Police, Sherilingampally, P.S. 5 P. Uma Rani W/o. P. Narasimha Rao, Plot No.410, A-Block, Usha Enclave Apts, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondent's in not initiating any action against the 5th respondent for her illegal construction activity, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the official respondents to stall the construction activity initiated by the 5th respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5) KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.9447 of 2009 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in not initiating any action against the 5th respondent for the alleged illegal construction activity being taken up in Sy.Nos.12 and 13 of Khanamet village, is arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation, dated 17- 03-2009 requesting the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the 5th respondent followed by several reminders. Alleging that the respondents 1 to 4 failed to take any action, the present Writ Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. As could be seen, the matter involves various disputed questions of fact, which cannot be enquired into by this court. At any rate since the petitioner states to have made a representation, which is pending before the third respondent, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the representations made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the 5th respondent to rebut the allegations made. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J Dt.02.06.2009 PN/KH