IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23522 of 2007 Between: Nammi Suryanarayana S/o Late Nammi Yerraiah R/o 36-96-313, Ramji Estate, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam-8. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corportion, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ or order or direction more particualrly one inthe nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action ofthe respondent in demolishing the petitioner's house in H. No. 36-96-313 in sy. No. 1/6 at Dondaparthy admeasuring 240 sq. yds. (Now called as Ramji Estate Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam-8) as illegal, arbitrary, without any notice, contrary to article 14, 21 and 300-A ofthe Constitution of India and consequently directthe respondent not to demolish the house of the petitioner bearing H. No. 36-96-313, Ramji Estate, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam-8 and pass such other order or orders theHon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23522 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to declare the action of the respondent in demolishing his house bearing H.No.36-96-313 in Sy. No.1/6, at Dondaparthy admeasuring 240 sq. yds. as illegal, arbitrary, without any notice, contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing H.No. H.No.36-96-313 in Sy. No.1/6, at Dondaparthy admeasuring 240 sq. yds. He apprehends demolition of his house in the process of giving way to the weaker sections colony. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipality, on instructions, submits that there is no proposal of giving way to the weaker sections colony by demolishing the constructions of the petitioner. He further submits that in the event of any road is being laid, the respondent- Municipality will follow the procedure as contemplated under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. 4. In that view of the matter, the cause in the writ petition does not survive. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________________ June 19, 2008 KVR