IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18170 OF 2011 Between: T.Laxmipathi … Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18170 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of plot No.8/A/1, situated in Municipal premises bearing No.12-13-556 (part) in survey No.168, situated at Nagarjuna Nagar Colony, Lalaguda, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 24.02.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.2 –Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) on 30.03.2010, seeking permission for constructing a residential house. By letter, dated 12.04.2010, the petitioner was informed by respondent No.2 that in view of pendency of W.P.No.21939 of 2008 and W.P.No.24135 of 2009, filed by the residents of Nagarjuna Nagar, the petitioner should not proceed with construction until specific permission is granted. In response to the same, the petitioner made a detailed representation, dated 06.05.2010, bringing to the notice of respondent No.2 that while granting interim orders in W.P.No.24135 of 2009, it was made clear by this Court that pendency of the said Writ Petition should not work as an impediment to deal with the application of respondent No.3 therein and that the same should be dealt with as per the rules governing the field. It was also brought to the notice of respondent No.2 that respondent No.3 in W.P.No.24135 of 2009 was the owner of a plot situated in the very same survey No.168, in which the petitioner’s plot is also situated. While acknowledging the petitioner’s representation, dated 06.05.2010, respondent No.3 by letter, dated 05.06.2010, informed the petitioner that his representation was under examination and requesting him not to proceed with any type of construction till the sanction is accorded by the Corporation. However, in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, there was no response from the respondents and the petitioner’s request for building permission has been kept pending for the past more than a year. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in view of liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24135 of 2009, it is open to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request for building permission in accordance with law. It is also pleaded that the respondents have granted permission in respect of the plots situated adjacent to the petitioner’s plot. Thus, it is contended that the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s request, is arbitrary and illegal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation states that the petitioner’s request for building permission would be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request for grant of building permission keeping in view the subsequent representation, dated 06.05.2010, made by him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J JULY 05, 2011 YVL