THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.23388 of 2010 Dated 23rd August, 2011 Between: Maa Raju Association …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Greater Municipal Corporation, Tenneti Bhavan, Asselmetta Junction¸Visakhapatnam and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Purushotham Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri N.Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to cancel the list of 28 allottees for allotment of flats by respondent Nos.1 and 3 as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, has taken the objection that 28 allottees whose allotment of flats is sought to be questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition have not been impleaded as respondents. The learned counsel also raised a further objection that before filing this writ petition, the petitioner has not approached respondent Nos.1 and 3 with the grievance about the purported ineligibility of 28 allottees. I see merit in the objections raised by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Even though the petitioner has impleaded one society as respondent No.2, in the opinion of this Court, that by itself would not be enough as any direction to cancel the allotments would adversely affect the interests of the individual allottees. Moreover, before a writ of mandamus is sought, the aggrieved party has to first approach the competent authority seeking justice as held by the Apex Court in Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury v. State of West Bengal[1] and Amrit Lal Berry, K.N.Kapur v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi[2]. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to first approach respondent Nos.1 and 3 with a representation claiming appropriate relief against the allotment of flats made to the third parties. If such representation is received, respondent Nos.1 and 3 shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of two months. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29918 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd August, 2011 VGB [1] AIR 1972 SC 2060 [2] AIR 1975 SC 538