THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU Writ Petition No.22216 of 2004 ORDER: 1 On 29.02.2008 when the case reached for hearing there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. So I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and posted the case to today for orders. Even today also there is no representation on behalf of any of the respondents. 2 On the ground that respondents 1 and 2 are not initiating any action against the 4th respondent inspite of several petitions being filed against the 4th respondent alleging that she is making constructions in violation of the building rules and regulations, petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action against the 4th respondent for the illegal constructions being made by her. 3 The case of the petitioner is that in the industrial area at Jeedimetla, sponsored by respondents 1 and 2, 4th respondent was allotted a site for construction of a hospital building subject to the conditions stipulated in the proceedings dated 08.01.2003. Fourth respondent made the construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan regarding the front set back and other requirements, and there are several deviations from the building plan. So when respondents 1 and 2 tried to initiate action against her she filed O.S.866 of 2003 for a declaration and obtained an injunction against the other respondents restraining them from interfering with her construction activities, wherein the Court directed her to proceed with the construction only according to the sanctioned plan. Yet, she, in disobedience of that order made constructions in violation of the approved building plan and building rules. In spite of several requests made by him, the respondents 1 and 2, who are vested with the powers to take action against the erring builders, are not initiating any action against the 4th respondent and hence this Writ Petition. 4 The Zonal Manager of the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (the Corporation) filed his counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 admitting that the Corporation which is vested with the power to sanction building permits and technical sanction, had accorded permission for construction of a hospital building to the 4th respondent in plots 1, 2 and 3(part), situated in S.No.279 (part) and 280 (part) of Shapurnagar village in Jeedimetla Phase I and thereafter Commissioner accorded permission for construction of the building to the 4th respondent, who proceeded with the construction. As it was found that the 4th respondent unauthorizedly constructed an additional floor contrary to the sanctioned plan and also deviated from the sanctioned plan, Commissioner of the Corporation vide notice dated 02.08.2003, directed the 4th respondent not to deviate from the approved plan. Instead of complying with the said notice, 4th respondent went ahead with the unauthorized construction by filing a suit for a declaration that the notice dated 02.08.2003 issued to her is null and void and for a perpetual injunction and obtained an ex parte order of status quo on 19.08.2003. After the Corporation put in appearance and informed the Court that 4th respondent, under the guise of the ex parte order, proceeded with the construction of the building in violation of the approved plan, the ex parte interim injunction order was made absolute with a direction to the 4th respondent to construct the building only as per the sanctioned plan. Yet, without following the said order, 4th respondent made unauthorized construction. So the Commissioner of the Corporation issued notice under Section 228(1) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 dated 23.06.2004 to the 4th respondent giving details of the violation, and the unauthorized constructions. In reply, 4th respondent submitted her explanation dated 26.06.2004. Thereafter HUDA also issued a show cause notice dated 28.05.2004 under Section 42 of the A.P. Urban Development Areas Act 1975 to the 4th respondent to show cause why the unauthorized construction should not be demolished. In pursuance of the order of the Court in CMA No.333 of 2004, the Commissioner of the Corporation granted an opportunity to the 4th respondent to explain her case and after considering her explanation the Commissioner of the Corporation passed a reasoned order on 04.04.2005 and issued a notice under section 228(3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act calling upon the 4th respondent to remove the unauthorized constructions made in violation of the sanctioned building plan. Aggrieved thereby 4th respondent filed O.S.No.438 of 2005 for a declaration that the final order dated 04.04.2005 passed by the Commissioner of the Corporation as null and void and sought a perpetual injunction in which an order of status-quo was passed. After obtaining the order of status-quo, 4th respondent proceeded with the unauthorized construction. After the court dismissed the petition for injunction, 4th respondent filed an appeal to the District Judge, which is pending. So no action could be taken against 4th respondent only because of the orders of injunction obtained by her. 5 No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4. 6 In the affidavit filed in support of the application and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is clearly stated that 4th respondent proceeded with the construction in violation of the approved building plan and in violation of the orders of injunction also. As respondents 1 and 2 plead that the order of the civil Court is coming in their way to proceed in implementing the order passed by the Commissioner to remove the unauthorized constructions, and as the constructions made by the 4th respondent are said to be in violation of the approved plan and as the 4th respondent failed to explain how she could make such constructions, by filing a counter affidavit, respondents 1 and 2 can be given permission to demolish the unauthorized constructions and also the constructions made in deviation of the approved plan by the 4th respondent, as the 4th respondent cannot, when the civil court granted permission to her to construct the building according to the sanctioned plan, construct the building in violation of the approved building plan and proceed with any constructions in violation of the order of status quo. 7 So I dispose of this petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to proceed with the demolition of the unauthorized construction and the constructions made in violation of the sanctioned building plan by the 4th respondent irrespective of any order of injunction or status- quo passed by any civil Court subordinate to this Court. Petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition from 4th respondent. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. -------------------------- C.Y.Somayajulu, J. 07.03.2008 kvsn