IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 947 of 2008 Between: A.Satyanarayana, S/o.A.Narsing Rao, Rep.by GPA Holder A.Raj Mohan, S/o.A.Satyanarayana(37) years, R/o.1-4-27/72/78,Bholakpur,Musheerabad,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Commissioner,G.H.M.C Circle-III Tank Bund,Hyd 2 The Dy.Commissioner,G.H.M.C Circle No.III Hyderabad 3 The Asst.Town Planner, G.H.M.C.Circle.III Abdis,Hyd 4 K.Satyanarayana, S/o.Kalappa, R/o.1-4-27/72/77/1, Bholakour,Mhsheerabad,Hyd .....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 pass such an order or orders one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the inaction of the respondent 1to 3 for not taking steps as per municipal law against the Respondent No.4 who has made as illegal construction without obtaining a valid Municipal permission in respect of the property house bearing No.1-4-27/72/771, situated at padmashali Colony,Bolakpur,Hyderabad,in view of the representation made by the petitioner on 10-5-2007 and 13-8-2007 before the Respondent No.1 to 3and declare the same as totally illegal,arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by A.Satyanarayana assailing inaction of the Special Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad-1st respondent; The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad-2nd respondent and the Assistant Town Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-3rd respondent in considering his representation with regard to unauthorized constructions made by K.Satyanarayana-4th respondent. 2. It is not in dispute that proceedings under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, have been issued against the 4th respondent detailing the deviations made by him in the constructions. Such is the situation, the cause of action in this writ petition does not survive. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous at the admission stage. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:19th June, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}