IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9701 of 2008 Between: 1 V. Usha Rani W/o V. laxman Reddy R/o H.No. 5-58/3, P. No. 27, Prashanth Nagar Colony, Old Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 V. Narender Reddy s/o Late V. Ranga Reddy R/o H. No. 5-49/7, Prashanth Nagar Colony, Old Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep by its Deputy Commissioner, Alwal, Municipality, Ranga Reddy district. 2 R. Surya Rao S/o R. Venkateshwrlu R/o H. No. 5-538/19, Plot No. 19 Prashanth Nagar Colony, Old Alwal, R.R. District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19, & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent no. 1 to consider the representation of petitioner and prevent the illegal constructions being made by respondent No.2. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.G.JAYAPRAKASH BABU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY, S.C. FOR M.C.H. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9701 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt. V.Usha Rani and Sri V.Narender Reddy assailing the inaction of the 1st respondent- Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on their representation to prevent the illegal constructions being made by Sri R.Surya Rao, the 2nd respondent herein. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Corporation placed on record the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Alwal Circle of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. As per the said report, the 2nd respondent, after receiving the building permission, has proceeded with the construction work in deviation to the sanctioned plan. The deviations are detailed in the inspection report. He further submits that when the 1st respondent initiated proceedings for demolition of the unauthorized structures, the 2nd respondent approached the Civil Court and obtained temporary injunction and thereby the 1st respondent is prevented to proceed further. The 1st respondent Corporation filed a counter in the injunction petition in the suit. The 2nd petitioner herein already filed an application to implead him as one of the defendant in the suit. The factual aspect of filing of the suit by the 2nd respondent herein and obtaining interim orders is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In that view of the matter, as and when interim injunction order passed against the 1st respondent is vacated, steps for demolition of unauthorized constructions made by the 2nd respondent shall be taken by the 1st respondent, in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take steps for demolition of unauthorized constructions made by the 2nd respondent, in accordance with the provisions of law, as and when the interim injunction granted in favour of the 2nd respondent herein is vacated. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 30.06.2008 v v To 1 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy district. 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies