THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.5799 of 2006 DATED: 13.07.2010 Between: Kuncham Padmavathi .. Petitioner And The Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram District and others. .. Respondents ORDER: It appears, the petitioner is the owner of shop No.4 named as Padma Sri Plaza situated in the ground floor of the building namely P.S.N. Estates situated at Vizianagaram Town and District. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent, who is the builder of the said building, raised certain additional structures in the common area of the building, contrary to the sanctioned plan and without the consent of owners of the flats in the building, and handed over the possession of the same to the 4th respondent bank for commercial use. Thereupon, she filed a suit in O.S.No.4 of 2006 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, seeking permanent injunction and other allied reliefs. She also complained the matter to respondents 1 and 2, Commissioner of Vizianagaram Municipality and Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority respectively, and requested them to take necessary action against the 3rd respondent, but it is her grievance that no action is taken by them so far. Hence, she filed the present writ petition, seeking directions to respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the additional structures in question raised by the 3rd respondent. Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit stating that, upon noticing that the 3rd respondent deviated from the sanctioned plan in respect of set backs, notices were issued to him and security deposit paid by him, at the time of release of final approval, was forfeited and charge sheets were also filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, which were taken cognizance as S.T.C.Nos.40 of 2004 and 102 of 2005. The said S.T.Cs. were ended in conviction, by sentencing the 3rd respondent to pay a fine of Rs.7,500/- in each case. While so, in the meantime, the 3rd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.238 of 2004 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, and hence no further action could be taken in the matter. It is further stated that, after disposal of the said suit, appropriate action will be taken. The counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2-VUDA indicates that it is no way concerned with the matter and respondent No.1 is competent to take appropriate action against the illegal constructions complained of. Respondent No.3-builder also filed counter-affidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that it is, in fact, the petitioner who tried to encroach into the common areas. When he and other owners resisted her attempts, she filed the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2006 with the self-same allegations and, having failed to get interim injunction in the said suit, she resorted to file the present writ petition. It is further stated that the 4th respondent bank is functioning in shop No.5 of the subject building, whereas the petitioner is running her business in shop No.4. It is categorically denied that additional structures were raised in the common areas. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit in O.S.No.238 of 2004 filed by the 3rd respondent was dismissed as not pressed, on 22.08.2008 itself, and even thereafter no action is taken by the 1st respondent as regards the constructions made by the 3rd respondent in deviation of the sanctioned plan. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submit that since the petitioner has already moved the Civil Court, no orders need be passed in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2006 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, against the 3rd respondent herein, for permanent injunction and other allied reliefs, and the same is pending. Though she contends that the 3rd respondent made certain illegal constructions, by encroaching into the common areas of the subject building, the 3rd respondent denied the same and he categorically stated that the petitioner herself tried to encroach into the common areas and that when himself and other owners resisted her, she filed the suit and, since no interim relief was granted in the said suit, she approached this Court. No reply-affidavit is filed by the petitioner, denying this stand taken by the 3rd respondent. Even, the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent- Municipality indicates that the 3rd respondent deviated from the sanctioned plan in respect of set backs only, and there is no mention about the alleged additional constructions. This apart, the petitioner has not made any whisper in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, about the suit in O.S.No.238 of 2004 filed by the 3rd respondent against the 1st respondent, though it was pending at the time of filing of the present writ petition. Thus, the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands. In the above view of the matter and since the petitioner has already moved the Civil Court for redressal of her grievance, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 13th July, 2010 IBL