HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20309 of 2007 Dated: 01-02-2008 Between: Dr.Deepak Raj. … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Charminar Police Station & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20309 of 2007 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to register a case against respondents 3 and 4 for an offence of continuous nuisance, etc., and to take steps accordingly for stopping such nuisance. 3. The petitioner claims to be a resident of House No.21-5-11 and 21-5-12/1 at Darwaja Charmahal, Opposite City College, Hyderabad. He got issued a notice through his Counsel by name Gopi Chand to the Station House Officer, Charminar Police Station and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, inter alia, stating that respondents 3 and 4 are carrying out pipe bending and painting works near his house and they are doing so without obtaining trade license as required under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the HMC Act’) and are causing nuisance. It is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of such a representation through the Advocate, no action has been taken by respondents 1 and 2. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant Medical Officer of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is categorically stated that as respondents 3 and 4 were carrying on the activity of pipe bending and painting works without any license, they have issued notice under Section 402 read with 622 of the HMC Act on 15.10.2007 to stop their activity and pursuant to the said notice, respondents 3 and 4 have stopped the same and removed the entire material from the said premises. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner also admits that from the last three months, there is no such nuisance by respondents 3 and 4. However, it is submitted that there is some infrastructure developed by respondents 3 and 4 and in future, they may restore their activity. Apprehending the same, he seeks directions for removal of such infrastructure. 6. The very relief sought for in the writ petition is complaining inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2. When the 2nd respondent has already initiated proceedings under the provisions of the HMC Act and issued notice under Section 402 read with 622 of the said Act, and when it is admitted by the respondents that the activity of pipe bending and painting, etc., was stopped, it cannot be said that no action has been taken in the matter by respondents 1 and 2. The mere apprehension of petitioner that respondents 3 and 4 may again start the activity of pipe bending and painting as the infrastructure is not removed, is not a basis for giving further directions against the respondents at this stage, particularly when it is admitted by learned counsel for petitioner himself that respondents 3 and 4 have stopped the activity of pipe bending and painting. However, it is open for the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action against respondents 3 and 4 if the activity of pipe bending and painting is restored by them in future. 7. Subject to above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st February 2008 ajr