THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 17626 OF 2010 DATE: 26.07.2010 Between: Rooplal Yadav ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 17626 OF 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the constructions allegedly made by the 3rd respondent in premises bearing No.14-5-317/1 Shahinayath Gunj, Hyderabad in deviation to the sanctioned plan. It is alleged that in spite of the notice dated 24.06.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent directing the 3rd respondent to stop the constructions, he has been proceeding with the illegal constructions and though the respondents 1 and 2 are aware of the same, they failed to take any action for removal of the illegal constructions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Admittedly, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.2313 of 2010 in the Court of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad based on the same set of facts to which the 1st respondent-Corporation as well as the 3rd respondent herein are parties. The material available on record shows that by order dated 18.06.2010 in I.A.No.526 of 2010 the civil Court directed the 3rd respondent herein to maintain status quo towards northern side of the petitioner’s property and in terms of the said order the 2nd respondent issued the notice dated 24.06.2010 calling upon the 3rd respondent to maintain status quo in compliance with the order in I.A. dated 18.06.2010. In the circumstances, even if the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 it is for the petitioner to take steps before the civil Court for appropriate directions in the suit which is admittedly pending. As it is not open to the petitioner to pursue parallel remedies at the same time, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 26.07.2010 Ivd