THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.803 of 2010 08-11-2010 BETWEEN; Kuncham Padmavathi wife of Srinivasa Rao ...Petitioner vs. The Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipality and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.803 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) This appeal is by the writ petitioner. The writ petition is for declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in failing to tak action against the 3rd respondent in respect of the alterations/modification made by the said respondent contrary to the sanctioned plan, is illega without jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of A.P Apartment (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 Act, and seeking direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the additional structure erected by the 3rd respondent by using the common areas without consen of the flat owners. Earlier the appellant/writ petitioner filed O.S.No.4 of 2006 on the file o the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram against the 3r respondent seeking a permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect o the same substantive grievance as presented in the writ petition. Therea he also filed I.A.No.19 of 2006 for grant of an ad-interim injunction but n injunction has yet been granted and the interlocutory application i pending. It would also appear that the 3rd respondent had filed O.S.No.23 of 2004 also on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge Vizianagarm, against the Vizianagaram Municipality(as the defendant) i respect of the constructions put up by the 3rd respondent an seeking a permanent injunction against the Municipality from interferin with the constructions. In rejecting the writ petition, the learned single Judge has referred t the pendency of O.S.No.4 of 2006 filed by the appellant though against th 3rd respondent alone but in respect of the same constructions by the 3r respondent in respect of which the writ petition is filed alleging inactio and abdication of statutory responsibility by the Vizianagaram Municipalit and the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA)--the 1s and 2nd respondents herein. We find no error in the application of law o exercise of discretion by the learned single judge warranting appellat interference. The appellant/petitioner could well have impleaded the Vizianagarm Municipality and the VUDA also in O.S.No.4 of 2006 while seeking relie against the 3rd respondent and could have sought exercise by thes respondents of their statutory responsibilities in preventing unauthorize constructions and demolition of such unauthorised constructions However, the appellant/petitioner is seen to have split up the relief against the 3rd respondent in the suit and claiming directions to exercis statutory responsibility by the 1st and 2nd respondents in the writ petition Since the substratum of the grievance of the appellant is identical, namel illegal constructions by the 3rd respondent, there is a possibility of conflict of findings on facts relating to such alleged irregular/illega constructions in courts of competent jurisdiction, namely, the Civil Cou (Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram) and this Court. No litigatio should be permitted which has the potential of creating conflict of finding in identical fact situations as such would be an abuse of the process o law. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Th appellant/petitioner is however at liberty to pursue appropriate remedie against the respondents 1 and 2 herein as well in O.S.No.4 of 200 pending on the file of the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge Vizianagaram or in any other independent proceedings before that court o any other appropriate forum, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 8th NOVEMBER 2010. TSNR