IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9288 of 2006 Between: Konthala venkanna reddy, S/o. Kamaraju Reddy, R/o. D.No.4-6-38/2, Sadivari Street, Ramakrishnaraopet, kakinada, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kakinada, E.g.District. 2 The District Collector, E.G.District, at Kakinada. .....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 issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to construct a public latrine adjacent to the house of the petitioner i.e., besides the house bearing D.no.4-6-38/2, Sadivari Street, Ramakrishnaraopet which comes under Division No.36 of Kakinada Municipal Corporation as arbitrary illegal unjust and against the Article 14, 21a, 47 of Constitution of India and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.A.RAZAK Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 9288 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by Konthala Venkanna Reddy with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to construct public latrine adjacent to the house of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and nonest. 2. The petitioner is owner of House bearing No. 4-6-38/2, Sadivari Street, Ramakrishnaraopet. His house is situated in thickly populated residential area. There was a public latrine in the locality. The said latrine came to be demolished because existence of it was causing unbearable foul smell and health hazards. After demolition of the said latrine, almost all the residents of the locality constructed their individual latrines. While so, according to the petitioner, one Ms. Padmavathi, a Corporator of 36th Division, who is hostile to him mooted the proposal for reconstruction of the public latrine. The petitioner submitted representation dated 20-4-2006 resisting the said proposal of the 1st respondent to reconstruct the latrine. His representation remained unattended. Therefore, he chooses to approach this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- Municipality. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as on this day the public latrine is not reconstructed and therefore, seeks direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner wherein objections have been raised for reconstruction of the public latrine, and pass appropriate orders. 5. In view of the limited relief sought for, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner 20-4-2006 before taking decision with regard to the reconstruction of the public latrine adjacent to the house of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 20th August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 9288 OF 2006 20th August, 2008.