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 : 9880 of 2009 Between: Kamisetty Subba Rao, S/o. Late Subbarayudu, Hindu, R/o. D.No.4/239, Nawabpet, Nawabpet, Nellore, Nellore District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Peteti Ramesh Babu, S/o. Radhaiah, Hindu R/o. 4/240, Nawabpet, Nellore, Nelloe District. 2 The Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Nellore District. ... 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 writ or order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent i.e., Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore to take action against the 1st respondent for removal of illegal constructions made in D.No.4/240, Nawabpet, Nellore by the 1st respondent as per the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act and for bear the 1st respondent from proceeding further with the illegal constructions by issue of writ of mandamus or any other order or direction and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.SRIDHAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9880 of 2009 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent – Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation in not taking action against the first respondent for removal of the alleged illegal constructions made in Door No.4/240, Nawabpet, Nellore is arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that though the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 28.02.2009 bringing to the notice of the second respondent about the alleged illegal constructions by the first respondent and requesting to take necessary action and the same was received in the office of the second respondent on 08.04.2009, no action has been taken so far. Hence, the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent – Corporation, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the first respondent to rebut the allegations made by the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J 2nd June 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) kh/PN