IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11975 of 2008 Between: Thandara Sheela Ramani, W/o. Arinana Ramu, R/o. D.No.14-6-3, Anthony Nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioenr, Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation, Aseelmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam. 2 Thandara Jeevan, S/o. Stephen, R/o. D.No.13-2-1/2, Anthony Nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. 3 M/s Premier Enterprises, rep by its Partner S.Balaji, S/o. Tejo Rao, R/o. D.No.16-4-17,Officaial Colony, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not taking steps to remove the illegal constructions made by the second and third respondents in the 4 feet passage existing between the house of the petitioner and second respondent is highly arbitrary bad and illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to remove the illegal constructions made on the 4 feet passage in between the plot of the petitioner and second respondent's plot situated at Plt No.4 (H.No.14-6-3) in Sy.No.112 Anthony nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICLE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11975 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Thandara Sheela Ramani assailing the inaction of the 1st respondent on the representation submitted by her on 29-5-2008 bringing out some unauthorized constructions being made by the Respondents No. 2 and 3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representations submitted on various dates complaining the unauthorized constructions made by the respondents No.2 and 3 remained unattended. Para 4 of the affidavit reads hereunder. “ The petitioner gave a complaint on 26-5- 2008 to the first respondent that the second and third respondents are constructing illegally in the passage blocking the way to reach to my plot and requested to take immediate steps to remove the illegal constructions made in the passage and also requested to remove the constructions made by the second and third respondents without leaving any set backs and against the sanctioned plan. The petitioner has also given telegraphic complaints on 15-5-2008 and 295-2008 to the first respondent to take steps against the illegal constructions made by the second and third respondents ont eh passage. The first respondent colluded with the second and third respondents and so far no steps are taken to remove the illegal construction made on the passage which is blocking the way to my plot and also has not taken any steps to remove the construction made against the sanctioned plan. The officials of the first respondent are visiting the construction site regularly and they are not taking any action against the illegal constructions made by the second and third respondent in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner. On the other hand, the officials of the first respondent are assisting the second and third respondents in making illegal constructions in the 4 feet passage which is only the way connecting her plot to the Municipal Road. The first respondent officials are in hand in glow with the second and third respondents. If the illegal constructions made in the passage are not stopped, the petitioner will sustain irreparable loss and injury as there is no way to go her plot. The action of the first respondent in not taking action against illegal construction made by the second and third respondents in the passage and also allowing them to construct without leaving any setbacks without following sanctioned plan is highly arbitrary bad and illegal”. 4. It appears the petitioner submitted written representation to the first respondent detailing the illegal constructions allegedly made by the respondent No.2 and 3. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving direction to the first respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 15-5-2008 and 29-5-2008 and pass appropriate orders after putting on notice to the affected persons. 5. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 12th June, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICLE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11975 OF 2008 12th June, 2008.