THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25997 of 2009 and Contempt Case No.209 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The Writ Petition and the Contempt Case are interrelated. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner is the owner of premises, bearing No.21-1-717, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad. The 4th respondent i.e. Narayanai Bai is her neighbour and owner of premises, bearing No.21-1-712. The petitioner submitted three complaints in the month of November, 2009 before respondents 1 to 3, alleging that the 4th respondent started construction without permission and contrary to bye-laws. Her grievance is that respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any action, and therefore, seeks appropriate directions, in this regard. While issuing notice before admission, this Court passed an interim order, on 01.12.2009, directing that the 3rd respondent in the writ petition shall ensure that the 4th respondent does not make any construction, except in accordance with the sanctioned plan. C.C.No.209 of 2010 is filed alleging that the 4th respondent has made construction, despite the interim order. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is making construction, without any permission. The latter, on the other hand, states that she submitted an application before the Municipal Corporation with a request to grant permission, and that since no orders were passed, either granting or rejecting permission, she got issued a notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and commenced the construction. It is also stated on her behalf that, the interim order passed by this Court was served upon her on 28.01.2010. The 4th respondent commenced the construction, on the strength of deemed permission. Stating that the officials of the Municipal Corporation are interfering with the construction, she filed O.S.No.289 of 2010 in the Court of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and obtained interlocutory orders therein. In their counter-affidavit, respondents 1 to 3 stated that the application submitted by the 4th respondent for permission to construct building was rejected on 14.12.2009. However, there is nothing on record to show that the said order was communicated to the 4th respondent. Even assuming that any deemed permission had accrued to the 4th respondent, she cannot make any construction in deviation of the building bye-laws, and in particular those, which insist on leaving of open place on all sides of the building. The mere fact that the 4th respondent commenced the construction by issuing a notice under Section 452 of the Act does not absolve her from complying with the requirements under the bye-laws. When it was brought to her notice that the order of temporary injunction obtained by her in O.S.No.289 of 2010 in the Court of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, would amount to contravention of the order passed by this Court, she initiated steps for withdrawing the suit itself. This Court is of the view that respondents 1 to 3 need to examine the application submitted by the 4th respondent seeking permission, and indicate the nature of deficiencies or objections for it. The petitioner can also be permitted to point out the deviations, if any, on the part of the 4th respondent. Till respondents 1 to 3 passes an order, after undertaking such an exercise, the 4th respondent shall not be entitled to make any construction. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that, a) respondents 1 to 3 shall re-consider the application submitted by the 4th respondent seeking permission, and communicate the nature of deficiencies, within 15 days from today, leaving it open to her to comply with the same; b) the Writ Petitioner shall be entitled to make a representation vis-à-vis the proposed construction and the same shall be taken into account by respondents 1 to 3; c) respondents 1 to 3 shall pass final orders within 15 days from the date on which the 4th respondent complies with the objections, or submits revised plan; d) till the exercise, as indicated above, is completed, the 4th respondent shall not be entitled to make, or continue, the construction. She shall also take necessary steps to withdraw the suit, forthwith. In view of the facts mentioned above and the nature of disposal given to the Writ Petition, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.12.04.2010. GJ