THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16255 OF 2011 Dated: 30.06.2011 Between: Chintagunta Koteswara Rao and another … Petitioners AND The Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry and another … Respondents This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16255 OF 2011 O R D E R: The petitioners claim to be the owners of building bearing No.42-7-28, Kothapeta, Rajahmundry. Alleging that the 2nd respondent herein, who is the southern side neighbour of the petitioners, is interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners house property, the petitioners filed O.S.No.868 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry seeking injunction. By order, dated 17.02.2011, status quo was directed to be maintained and the said order is in operation. In spite of the same, as the 2nd respondent was proceeding to make constructions, the petitioners made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and pursuant thereto, it was informed by the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 24.02.2011 that the 2nd respondent was not granted any permission for making construction in premises bearing No.42-7-29. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners brought the said fact to the notice of the 1st respondent and requested the 1st respondent – Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry to take immediate steps to stop the illegal constructions being made by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.Swarna Seshu, the learned counsel, who accepted notice for the 1st respondent Corporation. The material available on record shows that in response to the Application No.2010-ADM-0114/G4-R.L.No.1772, the 1st respondent Corporation by endorsement dated 24.02.2011 informed the petitioners that the Corporation had not issued any building plan in respect of premises bearing No.42-7-29, Kothapeta, Rajahmundry. The specific case of the writ petitioners, who are the neighbours of the 2nd respondent, is that the 2nd respondent has been proceeding with construction in the said premises illegally and unauthorisedly. Having regard to the fact that no permission is granted to the 2nd respondent to make any construction in the premises No.42-7-29, the 1st respondent is bound to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioners and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 2nd respondent. Such exercise shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent shall also ensure that the 2nd respondent does not proceed with any construction contrary to law. No costs. ___________ G.ROHINI, J JUNE 30, 2011 Note: Issue CC in three days (B/o) Ivd