THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.20145 of 2008 Dated 19th July, 2011 Between: T.N.Khambati …Petitioner And Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Vedula Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri B.Vijasen Reddy 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 act in accordance with law by preventing respondent No.2 from using the building in plot No.E-19, Vikrampuri Colony, Secunderabad for any purpose other than for residential purpose and also to cause demolition of the illegal constructions made in the stilt and fourth floors. The Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.1 has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that on the applications submitted by respondent No.2 for approval of building plan, the same was disposed of vide proceedings in C.B.R.No.1(06), dated 28.06.2006, by sanctioning the plan for stilt, ground, first and second floors. That during the inspection made by the Area Engineer on 10.05.2007 it was found that the construction was in violation of the sanctioned plan and respondent No.2 failed to maintain the minimum marginal open spaces, besides the existing area of construction. It is further averred that when the matter was placed before respondent No.1-Board, it has issued notices under Section 248 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Act’) and that in pursuance of the said decision, letter, dated 22.06.2007, was issued to respondent No.2 advising him to remove the unauthorised constructions within 30 days. As there was no response from respondent No.2, notice under Section 320 of the Act was issued and respondent No.2 has filed an appeal before the General Officer, Command-in-Chief, Southern Command, Pune in July, 2007 and the said appeal is pending. It is also stated that in view of pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 could not proceed further. That respondent No.2 has constructed a pent house on the fourth floor and let out the first and second floors to a company known as “Intense Technologies Limited” for commercial purpose, wherein nearly 100 employees are working. It is further stated that respondent No.1 has issued proceedings under Section 249 of the Act calling upon respondent No.2 to seal the premises within three days from the date of notice, failing which, sealing shall be undertaken by respondent No.1 and that respondent No.2 has received the said notice, dated 16.07.2011. This Court is unable to find any rationale or logic behind the inaction of respondent No.1 in proceeding against respondent No.2, having issued a notice under Section 248 of the Act as far back as 16.05.2007. It is neither the pleaded case of respondent No.1 nor this Court’s attention is invited to any provision under the Act, by which, when an appeal is pending, respondent No.1 is barred from proceeding further in the absence of an interim order granted by the appellate authority. Respondent No.1 being a statutory authority constituted for planned development and regulating the constructions within the cantonment area, it is expected to be vigilant in discharging its statutory obligations and it cannot search for excuses in seeking to justify its indifferent and inept attitude. Obviously filing of this case appeared to have acted as a catalyst for respondent No.1 at least to issue a notice for sealing of the premises. Having issued such a notice, respondent No.1 is expected to take this issue to its logical conclusion by exercising its powers under the Act. Since at long last respondent No.1 has opened its eyes by issuing the above-mentioned notice at least more than three years after issuance of notice under Section 248 of the Act, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to take up the consequential action after considering the objections, if any, filed by respondent No.2 within the time stipulated in the notice, dated 16.07.2011. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.26297 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th July, 2011 VGB