IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8590 of 2000 Between: N.Heeramani W/o Kashi Ram, R/o: Besides Muncipal Parking Complex, Abids, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Secretary, Muncipal Administration, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad 3. Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle-6, Hyderabad. 4. Chief City Planner, Hyderabad City, Muncipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 5. Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank bund, Hyderabad. 6. The Executive Engineer-II, East Zone, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. .....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, order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein not to provide entrance on the Northern side of the Municipal Parking complex additionally in Abids, Hyderabad effecting adversely the running of the Lid cap bunk by the petitioner and not to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.VENKATESWARA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER The case of the petitioner is that under the self employment scheme, on his application, he was accorded permission for installation of LIDCAP bunk besides Municipal Parking complex, Abids, Hyderabad, and he established the same after obtaining necessary. When the other adjacent shopkeepers tried to make entrance on the northern side of the complex, breaking the existing wall, which adversely affects his LIDCAP bunk, he filed Writ Petition No. 20805 of 1997 and also submitted representation to the 5th respondent, narrating the events. The said writ petition was disposed of on 30.12.1997. While so, again pressure is mounting from the inside shopkeepers for breaking the wall and provide additional entrance. Therefore, the petitioner submitted another representation on 30.7.1999. He further submits that beside his bunk, there is telephone booth and it was renewed on 17.4.2000 and, therefore, apprehending danger to his bunk, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, without dwelling on the merits or otherwise of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to disposed of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.7.1999 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this direction the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Elipe Dharma Rao, J. July 15, 2005 MAS. To 1. The Secretary, Muncipal Administration, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad 3. Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle-6, Hyderabad. 4. Chief City Planner, Hyderabad City, Muncipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 5. Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank bund, Hyderabad. 6. The Executive Engineer-II, East Zone, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 7. Two CCs to Govt. Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 8. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SAM}