IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6605 of 2009 Between: S.V.N. Prasad, S/o. S.Seshagiri Rao, R/o. 1-117, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Planning Officer, Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri (VGTM) Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada - 500 002, Krishna District. 2 The Vice Chairman, Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri (VGTM) Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada - 500 002, Krishna District. 3 The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. 4 Ch. Nandini Kishore Babu, S/o. Basava Rao, R/o. D.No. 1-132, Ramalayam Veedhi, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to enquire into the facts stated in complaint dt. 22-12-2008 and cancel the approved building plan vide BP No . 168/06, which was issued by the Respondent and declaring 1 to 3 Respondents inaction is being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMANA ALLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.ARUNA(SC FOR V.G.T.M.U.D.A) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that though he made representation dated 22.12.2008 to the 1st respondent requesting him to cancel the B.P. No.168/06, obtained by the 4th respondent based on the fabricated documents i.e. unregistered Will, alleging that the 4th respondent, without leaving any setbacks, has made illegal constructions by encroaching the path-way of six feet belonging to the petitioner, and thereby violating the approved plan, the official respondents have neither cancelled the B.P.No.168/06, nor passed any orders thereon. The learned Standing Counsel for V.G.T.M. Urban Development Authority appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that the 4th respondent filed W.P. No.1698 of 2009 wherein this Court directed the authorities to dispose of the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent- Vice Chairman. He further submits that in view of the appeal filed by the 4th respondent, which is pending adjudication, they have not taken any action on the petitioner’s representation. Further, after the present writ petition is filed, the appeal before the 2nd respondent was disposed of. In view of the above statement, no orders need be passed in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 21st April, 2009 bcj