IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 11278 of 2000 BETWEEN: 1 G. Gopal Reddy S/o G. Venkat Reddy, R/o MIG II, Block 11, Flat 10, Bagh Lingampally Housing Board Colony, Hyderabad. 2 V. Seetharam S/o. V.B. Sharma, R/o LIG Block 20 Flat 4, Bagh Lingampally Housing Board Colony, Hyderabad. 3 M.P. Murthy S/o. M.R. Rao, R/o HIG Block 3, Flat 4, Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 A P Housing Board, rep by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, South Division, A P Housing Board, Gagan Vihar, Hyderabad. 3 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, through its Commissioner at Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Asst City Town Planner, MCH Circle III, Abids, Hyderabad. ...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 or any other appropriate Wit or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Notification No. 424/LIG/BLP/E1/EE (6)/2000 dated 13.06.2000 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law and provisions of A P Housing Board Act, 1956 and if necessary by declaring Section 45 of the A P Housing Board Act, 1956 as unconstitutional and ultravires the Act and also violative of Articles 14 & 21 and also contrary to Articles 39, 47 of Directive Principles of State Policy and Art. 300 A of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents not to give effect to the same; Award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.L.RAVICHANDER Counsel for the Respondents: MS.G.SUDHA The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no action has been taken pursuant to the impugned auction notification dated 13.06.2000 so far, therefore, no orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. Recording the above submission, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous keeping it open to the petitioners to raise all the contentions as and when fresh cause of action arises. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 16, 2009 DSK