HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24336 of 2011 Date: 20.10.2011 Between: Jagdish Lalwani ..... Petitioner AND: The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Reptd by its Commissioner, Hyderabad And two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Srinivas Basava Counsel for the Respondents: Ms V.Jayasree for Sri C.Damodar Reddy Standing Counsel for GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in threatening to demolish Shop Nos.1 and 2 (G1 & G2) in Lower Ground Floor of “Vijetha Classic Empire” Complex, bearing H.Nos.2-42/1 to 6, of Sai Nagar, Chaitanyapuri Cross Roads, Hyderabad, pending the petitioner’s application for penalization of the unauthorized constructions, as illegal and arbitrary. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that under the Building Penalization Scheme (for short ‘BPS’), any constructions made in the area earmarked for parking cannot be regularized and that, inadvertently and in a routine manner, an intimation was given to the petitioner to submit his application for regularization. It is further stated that as the constructions raised by the petitioner cannot be regularized, his application for regularization was rejected vide letter, dated 27.12.2010. As the Writ Petition is filed on the premise that the petitioner’s application for regularization made under the BPS is pending and that, as the respondents have taken a stand in the counter-affidavit that the BPS application of the petitioner has already been rejected, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client was not served with a copy of order rejecting his BPS application. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to approach respondent No.2 for supply of a copy of the rejection order and in that event, respondent No.2 shall furnish a copy of the rejection order to enable the petitioner to question it. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.29863 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th October 2011 DR