THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26182 of 2011 Dated 20th September, 2011 Between: Mohd.Arifuddin …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Jagadish Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Dr.Y.Padmavathi Counsel for respondent No.4: AGP for MA & UD The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not disposing of the petitioner’s representation, dated 25.08.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to put respondent No.3 on notice. The petitioner, who is the neighbour of respondent No.3, averred that respondent No.3 has raised unauthorised construction over the premises belonging to her. That even though respondent No.2 issued notice, dated 08.10.2010, under Section 461 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) on 11.10.2010, respondent No.3 has not stopped construction compelling respondent No.2 to issue a notice under Section 452 of the Act. In the meantime, respondent No.3 has filed O.S.No.3830 of 2010 in the Court of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against respondent No.1 for perpetual injunction. In I.A.No.863 of 2010 filed in the said suit, an ad interim injunction was granted in favour of respondent No.3 against respondent No.1. That the said order on contest was vacated and the IA was dismissed by the lower Court on 24.10.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the order of injunction was vacated on 24.10.2010, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not been taking any action. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, I am of the opinion that if the facts pleaded by the petitioner are correct, there could be no justification for respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to resume the process for removal of the alleged unauthorised structures in pursuance of the notices issued under Sections 452 and 461 of the Act. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are, therefore, directed to take appropriate steps in continuation of the notices referred to above in respect of the alleged unauthorised structures, after giving respondent No.3 a notice as required under the Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.32324 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th September, 2011 VGB