IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5075 of 2009 Between: G.Ramachandran S/o.Late K.Gopala Swamy R/o.H.No.1-9-278/54, Balajinagar, Zamistanpur Village, Ramnagar Gundu, Hyderabad - 500 044. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Town Planning Section, Circle-3, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad-1. 3 Mrs.G.Seethapathy W/o. late G.Seethapathy H.No.1-9-278/53, Balajinagar, Zamistanpur Village, Ramnagar Gundu, Hyderabad - 500 044. .....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 any writ, order or directions more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any action on the representation of the petitioner dated 09.03.2009 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct them to direct the 3rd respondent herein not to proceed with the illegal constructions in the House No. 1-9-278/53, Balajinagar, Zamistanpur Village, Ramnagar Gundu, Hyderabad - 500 044, and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he purchased a plot admeasuring 443 Sq. yards of land in Sy. No. 77, situated in Zamistanpur village, Hyderabad under a registered sale deed dated 13.10.1977 from Gruhalakshmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited, and after obtaining permission from respondent Nos.1 and 2, he constructed a building as per the sanctioned plan. While so, the 3rd respondent, who resides on the northern side of his house, raised a wall over the petitioner’s wall without leaving any setbacks and also connected drainage pipelines to the petitioner’s drainage system. Then, the petitioner made a representation dated 09.03.2009 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 requesting them to stop the illegal constructions being made by the 3rd respondent and also take appropriate action against him, but it is his grievance that they have neither taken any action against the 3rd respondent nor passed any orders on the representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material placed on record. Since the representation, dated 09.03.2009 made by the petitioner is pending consideration before respondent Nos.1 and 2, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 have agreed to the disposal of the with petition with the following directions: “Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dated 9.3.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the unofficial respondent to put forth his version, expeditiously.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 16th March, 2009 bcj