IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3196 of 2003 Between: Dr. Y.V.Rama Rao S/o Sitaramaiah Ravi Chandra Nursing Home, R/o 11-3-17, Balaji Nagar, Khammam, Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P. Secretary, Municipal Administration Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 Municipal Commissioner Khammam Municipality, Khammam 3 Societies of Trustees of Indigenous Churches India B.Timothi El Shaddai, Brother Prayer House, D.No.11-3-16, Balajinagar, Khammam .....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 a Writ, Order or Direction more fully one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in sanctioning the plan vide No.G2/1990-2002/dt: 25-7-2002 against the rules and regulations and not taking any action against the 3rd respondent for violation of the sanctioned plan in premises bearing No.11-2-16, Balajinagar, Khammam, as illegal, improper and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take action the 3rd respondent as per the Law for violation of Building Rules and regulations. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner claims to be owning the premises bearing No.11-3-17 admeasuring 1450 sq.yards at Balaji Nagar, Khammam. He has been running a nursing home in the name and style Ravi Chandra Nursing Home. The third respondent/Societies of Trustees of Indigenous Churches India, represented by Brother B.Timothi, is his neighbour. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the third respondent is proceeding with the construction of prayer house contrary to regulations. He submitted representations to the Municipal Commissioner, Khammam Municipality, Khammam/second respondent, complaining the unauthorized constructions being made by the third respondent. There being no action on the representations, the petitioner approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Rule nisi came to be issued on 12/03/2003. An interim direction has also been issued to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15/02/2003 vide W.P.M.P.No.4188 of 2003. The order passed in the W.P.M.P. reads as under: “Pending further orders, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner dated 15/02/2003 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.916, Municipal Administration, dated 11/08/1991 whereunder it is specified for granting permission to construct an assembly building, minimum area required shall be 1000 square meters and also in the light of G.O.Ms.No.422, M.A., dated 31/07/1998.” The second respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the representation of the petitioner has been considered. Pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, necessary action has been initiated. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion in the counter-affidavit which reads as hereunder: “In reply to para 4, it is submitted that the statement of the petitioner is not correct. The permission granted by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent was as per the rules and regulations that had been in force. After obtaining the permission only, the 3rd respondent has started the construction of Community hall with some minor deviations to the sanctioned plans. Even earlier to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 15/02/2003 before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has identified the deviated portions and also issued notices under Section 217 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 on 21/01/2003 and 27/01/2003 and the same are served on respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has stopped the construction. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court has given directions to the respondent No.2 for disposing the petition submitted on 15/02/2003 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.916 and G.O.Ms.No.422. Immediately in pursuance to the directions of Hon’ble High Court, which were received on 13/03/2003 the major offended portions such as projections of the balconies are removed. The main objections of the petitioner was the extended portion of balcony up to his compound wall. This projection of balcony is removed. The major offended portions on four sides are removed. We have stopped the construction work even earlier to the complaint and after submitting the complaint also. We have constantly pursued the issue with respondent No.3 and the major offended portions such as all balconies on four sides are removed which were objectionable as per rules and regulations.” When the writ petition came up for hearing, there is no representation on either side. Perused the writ affidavit and the counter-affidavit. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.4188 of 2003, the second respondent has taken necessary action and removed the objectionable portions. Such is the situation, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as redundant. No order as to costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 29th July, 2009 SKM