Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.4950 of 2002 Dated 27th July, 2011 Between: The Arya Samaj Welfare Soceity, Secunderabad, reptd by its President- N.Nageswar Rao …Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, reptd by its Commissioner and six others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Manu Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri C.Damodar Reddy, Standing Counsel for GHMC Counsel for respondents 4 to 7: Sri G.Pedda Babu Counsel for respondents 2 and 3: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to see that the construction on premises bearing No.10-3-182, Plot No.12, Arya Samaj Compound, Secunderabad, is carried out as per the sanctioned plan. The petitioner sought for further direction to the respondents to demolish the unauthorised constructions. At the hearing, it has come out that during the pendency of this writ petition, respondents 4 to 7, who were impleaded as per order, dated 29.11.2010, passed in W.P.M.P.No.8317 of 2010, have got the constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan regularised under the Building Penalisation Scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.1965 of 2011 for direction to respondent No.1 to cancel the regularisation orders, dated 30.07.2009 and 27.10.2009. This Court by order, dated 08.02.2011, dismissed the said W.P.M.P. The said order reads as under: - “The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent, the then Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, to ensure the constructions undertaken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 on premises bearing No.120-3-182, Plot No.12, Arya Samaj Compound, St.John’s Road, Secunderabad, as per the sanctioned plan and to demolish the unauthorized constructions with a further direction not to grant any permission or licence to carry on commercial activity in the said premises. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the first respondent passed orders, dated 30.07.2009 and 27.10.2009 regularising the alleged unauthorized constructions in the said premises. In this petition, the petitioner seeks to cancel the said orders sanctioning regularization of unauthorized constructions. Since the said orders regularising the alleged unauthorized constructions give a fresh cause of action, being beyond the scope of the relief sought for in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, while not insisting the present petition, seeks permission of this Court to challenge the said orders, dated 30.07.2009 and 27.10.2009 by way of a separate writ petition. In view of the said submission, this WPMP is dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said orders, dated 30.07.2009 and 27.10.2009 in accordance with law, if it choose to do so.” At the hearing Sri Manu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has fairly conceded that with the regularisation of the constructions made by the private respondents, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner at this stage, unless those orders are questioned in a substantive proceedings. This is precisely what this Court has observed by order, dated 08.02.2011, which is reproduced above. Accordingly, while disposing of this writ petition as infructuous, liberty is given to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for questioning the orders, dated 30.07.2009 and 27.10.2009 of the first respondent. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.V.M.P.No.1215 of 2002, W.P.M.P.No.6221 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No.1965 of 2011 are disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 27th July, 2011 DR