IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10617 of 2008 Between: Mohammed Jafar Hussain S/o. Amahhed Hussain R/o. H.No. Flat No. 304, Mustaffa Towers Lak-di-ka-pool, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Sadasivpet Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner Sadasivapet Medak Dt,. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue any Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent / Commissioner in not providing the application / format required for applying for the regularization of the petitioner house situated within the 2nd respondent Municipality in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 112, dt. 31-01-2008 as amended from time to time and direct him to provide the said application to the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petitions is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring action of the 2nd respondent Municipality in not providing the application/format, required for applying for regularization of the petitioner’s house situated within the 2nd respondent municipal limits, in terms of GO Ms. No. 112 dated 31.1.2008 as amended from time to time and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to provide the said application to the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that on 9.3.1998, he purchased a plot in residential locality, bearing No. 11 admeasuring 200 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 416 in the limits of 2nd respondent and constructed house two years back. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the issuance of GO Ms. No. 112 dated 31.1.2008, which provides opportunity to the owners of unauthorized constructions to get regularized their construction by paying requisite penalty, which applies to the Municipal Corporations and Municipalities, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent for the application to seek regularization. But the second respondent even after making the petitioner to go round his office repeatedly for the last one month, did not arrange for the supply of application in the prescribed format. It is further his case that the second respondent having issued notice dated 4.4.2008 informing the petitioner about the amendment in GO Ms. No. 212 dated 31.1.2008, did not provide the requisite application / format to apply for the regularization of his house. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to provide the application to the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had approached the office of the second respondent on several occasions, the second respondent did not provide the application/format, but instead issued notice dated 4.4.2008 directing the petitioner to avail the one time opportunity for regularizing the unauthorized construction, within seven days. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the house of the petitioner is situated within the precincts of the 2nd respondent Municipality and also having regard to the averment that the petitioner had repeatedly approached the second respondent for the application/format to get his unauthorized construction regularized under the one time opportunity, provided under the GO Ms. No. 112 dated 31.1.2008, the second respondent is directed to provide an application/format to the petitioner within a period of one week, for submitting the same to the second respondent to get his unauthroised construction regularized. With this direction the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ G.Chandraiah, J. May 7, 2008 MAS