THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. Nos. 28708 of 2009 and 11295 of 2010 Common order: As the writ petitions are interconnected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in W.P. No. 28708 of 2008, which is filed by the petitioner praying to direct the official respondents to prevent respondent No.8 from making illegal constructions and further direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to implement the orders in File No. 1424/GPM/A3, dated 30.11.2009. The petitioner states that she is a resident of Bhagat Singh Nagar Colony, in which respondent No.8 is running a gas agency in the name and style of “Mahabubabad Gas Agency”. That respondent No. 8 having obtained permission from respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat, is constructing a LPG Godown. The petitioner further states that construction of LPG Godown in a residential area is not permissible, and as respondent No.8 was constructing the LPG Godown illegally, without obtaining clearances from the Fire Department etc., the residents of the colony, including herself submitted representations to the official respondents to direct respondent No.8 to stop the illegal constructions. The petitioner states that though acting on their representation, respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat, has issued notice dated 30.11.2009 to respondent No.8 calling upon him to stop the construction of LPG Godown, no action thereon had been taken. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition, seeking directions to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to implement the orders issued in the notice dated 30.11.2009. Respondent Nos. 4 and 8 filed separate counters. Respondent No.8 also filed W.P. No. 11295 of 2010 praying to declare the notice dated 30.11.2009, issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as illegal and arbitrary. The case of respondent No.8, as can be seen from the counter and the writ petition filed by him, in brief is that he purchased land in an extent of 1,000 Sq. yds. in Sy. No. 538/1 situated at Bhagat Singh Nagar Colony, Mahabubabad Village and Mandal, Warrangal, under two registered sale deeds dated 29.10.2002 and 24.05.2003 from Sri. B. Amarnath Gupta, Smt. D. Sakku Bai and Smt. D. Savitri and others, for the purpose of construction of LPG Godown. That with a view to establish LPG Godown, he obtained permission dated 27.02.2007 from the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, who also approved the plan. Thereafter, he submitted application along with the plan to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for grant of permission to establish LPG Godown. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 3 and 4 issued public notice and after calling for objections and after considering them, the Gram Panchayat passed resolution dated 05.01.2008 for grant of permission to respondent No.8. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 granted permission on 21.04.2008, which was subsequently renewed on 11.08.2009. While he was constructing the LPG Godown, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the guise that they received complaints from the locality people issued orders in notice dated 30.11.2009 calling upon him to stop the constructions. Respondent No.8 further states that praying to direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4, to implement the said order, the petitioner, who is one of his vendors, filed the writ petition. That when two other vendors of the land by names Sri. Gopi (son of the petitioner) and Smt. Shakuntala, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and construction of LPG Godown on the strength of the permission granted by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, respondent No.8 states that he filed suit in O.S. No. 115 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, and obtained order of interim injunction on 11.12.2009 and the same is still pending. Respondent No.8 further states that he has constructed the LPG Godown after obtaining necessary statutory clearances and has already spent about Rs.20.00 lakhs and that he would suffer irreparable loss if he is not allowed to run the LPG Godown. Hence, he prayed to grant appropriate directions to respondents not to interfere with the running of LPG Godown. Respondent No.4, namely the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, filed counter in W.P. No. 28708 of 2009, which virtually admits the stand taken by respondent No.8, but submits that the application submitted by him for grant of permission, does not state whether it is for residential or residential, but the plan annexed to the application indicates that it is for LPG Godown. He admitted that permission was granted to respondent No. 8 on 21.04.2008 which was again renewed on 11.08.2009 an submitted that he issued notice calling for objections and after considering the objections granted the said permission. He submitted that after grant of permission when he received complaints from the locality people, he issued orders in the notice dated 30.11.2009 calling upon respondent No.8 to stop the constructions with a request to either convert the same to residential or commercial and that they would not give licence to run LPG Godown. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 and 6, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent No.2. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.5, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.7 and the learned counsel for respondent No.8. The petitioner, admittedly appears to be one of the vendors of respondent No.8, who is said to have sold the land in question, in which respondent No.8 constructed the LPG Godown. Though the petitioner contends that respondent No.8 was constructing the LPG Godown illegally, without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and without obtaining necessary statutory clearances, the fact remains, the material placed before this Court by respondent No.8, and from the stand taken by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the counter, it becomes clear that respondent No.8 was granted permission by respondent Nos. 3 an 4, to construct LPG Godown, and in fact, such permission was granted, after an inspection of the site and based on a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. This apart, the material placed by respondent No.8, would disclose that even before obtaining permission from respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to construct LPG Godown, respondent No. 8 had obtained necessary statutory clearances that are required to establish LPG Godown. Though respondent Nos. 3 and 4, issued the impugned notice dated 30.11.2009 calling upon respondent No.8 to stop the construction, the fact remains, during the pendency of the writ petitions, respondent No.8 completed the construction of the LPG Gas Godown, and as of today, the permission granted by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to respondent No.8 to construct LPG Godown is not cancelled and it is still subsisting. As long as the permission granted to respondent No.8 is in existence, the constructions made by him cannot be said to be illegal, unless they are made in deviation to the sanctioned plan. It is not the case of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the constructions being made by respondent No.8 are in deviation of the sanctioned plan. That being so, they are not justified in issuing the impugned order dated 30.11.2009 calling upon respondent No.8 to stop the constructions. This apart, it is stated by respondent No.8 that except the house of the petitioner, which also is said to be at a distance, no other house of the villagers is in the vicinity of the site where the LPG Godown is constructed. The persons who appear to be obstructing the construction and running of LPG Godown by respondent No.8 are the petitioner, her son and one other person, who appear to be vendors of respondent No.8 of the land in question in which respondent No.8 constructed the LPG Godown. In fact, to restrain the son of the petitioner and other vendor, respondent No.8 already filed civil suit in O.S. No. 115 of 2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, and obtained interim injunction on 11.12.2009. The manner in which the petitioner sought to stall the construction being made by respondent No.8 in pursuance of the permission granted by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would make it clear, that the petitioner wants to take the assistance of public law remedy to settle her private civil disputes with respondent No.8, which cannot be permitted. For the foregoing reasons, W.P. No. 28708 of 2009 filed by the petitioner is dismissed and W.P. No. 11295 of 2010 filed by respondent No.8 is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.11.2009, issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, is set aside. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 4th August, 2010 IBL/KSR