IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4881 of 2007 Between: D. Anand S/o Late D. Bala Mallaiah, rep by his holder A. Raju S/o Anand aged 30 years Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 5-188/3, Mallikarjuna Colony, Old Bowenpally Balanagar (M) Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone, Hyderabad 2 Smt. G. Mallamma W/o Balaiah, R/o H. No. 5-188, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy 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 will be pleased to issue Writ or Writs or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.1 in taking steps for demolition of unauthorized and illegal constructions made by the Respondent No.2 in Property bearing H. No. 5-181, situated at Mallikarjuna colony, Old Bowenpally, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondents : MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of a writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of 1st respondent/Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, in taking steps for removal of unauthorized constructions made by respondent No.2 in the premises bearing H.No.5-181, situated at Mallikarjuna Colony, Old Bowenpally, Hyderabad. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, who is his neighbour, has obtained a sanctioned plan for construction of ground and two upper floors. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has started constructions in deviation to the sanctioned plan, without leaving any set-backs and is also making constructions in cellar. It is stated that inspite of his representations, dated 26.05.2006 and 11.07.2006, the 1st respondent/Commissioner has not taken any action in the matter. It is further stated that respondent No.2 has filed a suit against the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in O.S.No.2077 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and obtained injunction orders in I.A.No.2860 of 2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has also filed interlocutory application for his impleadment in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent i.e. O.S.No.2077 of 2006, no orders could be passed on the said application on 29th of January 2007, as the papers in the suit were missing. In that view of the matter, he approached this Court, seeking appropriate relief. 3. Asmuch as it is alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that papers in O.S.No.2077 of 2006 were misplaced only at the instance of 2nd respondent to prevent any action of removal of illegal constructions by 1st respondent, this Court, by order, dated 09.03.2007, called for a report from the Registrar (Vigilance) on the allegations made by the petitioner. The Registrar (Vigilance) has filed a report, dated 30.04.2007, basing on the report submitted by the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, stating that papers in O.S.No.2077 of 2006 were mistakenly merged with some other bundle, but he could not notice any willful intention on the part of members of the staff in missing the bundle. 4. Even according to the petitioner, there were injunction orders obtained by respondent No.2 in the suit filed by her in O.S.No.2077 of 2006. On the teeth of the orders issued in I.A.No.2860 of 2006 granting injunction in favour of 2nd respondent, it cannot be said that there is inaction on the part of 1st respondent/Commissioner. In view of the injunction orders, the 1st respondent is unable to take any further action in the matter. As much as it is stated that the petitioner has already moved an application for his impleadment in the suit, and the Municipal Corporation has also filed counter, pointing out the deviations, the petitioner can, as well, take steps for vacation of the injunction orders granted by the trial Court. In view of the subsisting injunction orders, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1/Commissioner is not taking any action for removing the unauthorized constructions made by the 2nd respondent. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, keeping it open for the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent in O.S.No.2077 of 2006, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd April 2009 ajr