IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.26094 of 2008 Between: Smt.R.Savithri W/o.R.Rajendra Kumar R/o. H.No.4-9-80/A, Brahmanwadi Locality, Mahabubnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mahabubnagar Municipality, Mahabubnagar, Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 Sri.R. Chandrakanth Rao S/o.Late R.Srinivas Rao Talluri Technologies Private Ltd., House No. 1-8-303/48, Plot No.32, Street No.1, P.G. Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. 3 Sri.R. Dilip Kumar S/o. Late Sri. R.Srinivasa Rao R/o. Door No. 3-4-255, Kanakadurga Apartments, Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027. 4 Dr.R.Amarnath Rao S/o.Late Sri.R.Srinivasa Rao Vijaya Ditya Ayurvedic Pharmacy, Opp: N.G.O's Home, Station Road, Mahabubnagar. .....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 or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records, pertaining to the Proceedings Roc.No.A2/6178/2007, dated 18.11.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent- Municipality, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law, by holding that the petitioner's name be continued as owner and possessor of the property bearing Municipal No. 4-9-80/A, Brahman-wadi, Mahabubnagar, in the assessment register as per the proceedings dated 27.8.2007, and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: DR.K.LAKSHMINARASIMHA The Court made the following : ORDER: On 19.12.2008, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, in W.P.M.P.No.34144 of 2008 granted the following interim order: “There shall be interim suspension as prayed for. However, this order will not preclude the 1st respondent from examining as to the correctness of the mutation, if any objections have been received from respondents 2 to 4, and passing appropriate orders as per law, after hearing all the parties concerned.” Thereafter, the petitioner has filed W.P.M.P.No.37157 of 2008 seeking to amend and substitute the prayer portion in W.P.M.P.No.34144 of 2008 in W.P.No.26094 of 2008, on the ground that by mistake the prayer portion has wrongly been typed. Today, when the matter came up, both the learned counsel submitted that in stead of ordering the amendment application, the order impugned in this writ petition itself can be set aside and the first respondent-appellate authority may be directed to examine the correctness of the mutations effected and pass appropriate orders. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 submits that even though this Court while granting interim order on 19.12.2008 gave liberty to the first respondent to examine the correctness of the mutations effected, the first respondent is not passing any orders on the representations of respondents 2 to 4 on the ground that the writ petition is still pending. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, as agreed by the learned counsel for all the parties, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of respondents 2 to 4, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after affording opportunity to both the parties to putforth their cases and pass orders in accordance with law, expeditiously. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 20.01.2009 Note: Issue CC in 3 days B/o. va/msv