IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25702 of 2002 Between: A.H.Akbar. … Petitioner And Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: None Counsel for respondent: None This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-Corporation in interfering with the construction activities and threatening to demolish the structures forming part of Plot No.B/26, House No.10-2-289/103, Shanthinagar, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation is present. A perusal of the record shows that on 30-12-2002 this Court passed the following order: “The petitioner obtained permission for construction of stilt for parking+5 upper floors in Permit No.21/8 under File No.71/CSC/TP4/2001 dated 12-9-2002. The petitioner was proceeding with the construction. A notice was served on the petitioner on 23-12-2002 under Section 452(2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act requiring him to submit his explanation within seven days. The petitioner informed that he is following the provisions and constructing the structures as per sanctioned plan and will submit his explanation before the afforded time. The petitioner without submitting his explanation to the show cause notice rushed to this Court contenting that the authorities of the Corporation visited the site and are interfering with the construction and are attempting to demolish the structures before the time given for submitting explanation. In view of the same, it is open to the petitioner to file his explanation by 2-1-2003 and on filing such application, the Corporation officials shall consider and pass a reasoned order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Until final orders are passed, the respondents shall not demolish the structures if already erected. However, the petitioner shall not deviate the approved plan in making construction of the structures. With the aforesaid conditions, interim stay”. As the grievance expressed in this Writ Petition was duly redressed by the above reproduced interim order, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of as infructuous. ----------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14-10-2009 MNR