THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 1921 of 2006 Oral order: The petitioner states that as respondent No.2 was making constructions in the premises in question in violation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the Building Bye- laws, the Zoning Regulations and G.O. Ms. No. 423, M.A., dated 31.07.1998 and a manner affecting the ventilation of his house, he lodged complaint dated 20.07.2002 with respondent No. 1 requesting him to take action against the illegal constructions. And it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.1 instead of taking action against the illegal constructions has allowed respondent No.2 to make the constructions. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying to direct respondent No.1 to take action against the illegal constructions, alleged to have been made by respondent No.2. On 01.02.2006, the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with the following directions: In a case of this nature, it would always be better for first respondent – MCH to look into the complaint, conduct inspection of the premises, if necessary, and take appropriate action in accordance with Sections 452, 460 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The first respondent is therefore directed to take necessary action against second respondent if there is any illegal construction made by second respondent without leaving necessary set backs as per the Building Bye- laws. This exercise may be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Questioning the above order, it appears respondent No.2 filed writ appeal, and a Division Bench of this Court, while setting aside the above order, remanded the writ petition to the writ court for hearing. Neither respondent No. 1 nor respondent No.2 filed counter. As none appeared for the respondents on the previous occasion, this Court directed listing of the matter “for orders”. In spite of the matter being listed under the caption “for orders” none appear for the respondents nor is there any representation made on their behalf. However, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent No.1 is directed to consider and dispose of the complaint dated 20.07.2005 of the petitioner after issuing notice to respondent No.2 and upon considering the explanation, if any, to be submitted by him, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 28th June, 2010 KSR