THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.19366 of 2009 Date: 14.09.2009 Between: Padam Chan Jain ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Office at Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI R. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, SC FOR G.H.M.C. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.6:- THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 5 in not taking action on the representation of the petitioner, dated 20.07.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is running a ready-made garment business at premises bearing No.4-5-278/2, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad. The sixth respondent is illegally running a Tiffin Center in the cellar portion of the neighbouring building and he had installed a exhaust fan towards the petitioner’s shop side and also installed a chimni, which are causing pollution and suffocation to the petitioner and also the neighboring shop owners and residents. Further, in view of running of the Tiffin Center in the cellar of the building, which is meant only for parking purpose, there is no space for parking the vehicles. In the said Tiffin center, the sixth respondent is using the Cylinders by getting the same refilled from the domestic cylinders. In view of the same, in the entire surrounding very hygienic situation is prevailing and it is causing great difficulty to the petitioner in running his business. Apart from that, the sixth respondent has also illegally engaged small children as labourers in his Tiffin Center. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to respondents 1 to 5 on 20.07.2009. His grievance is that though the said representation was received by respondents 1 to 5, no action has been taken against the sixth respondent so far. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned for the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that since the representation of the petitioner dated 20.07.2009 is pending consideration before the first respondent, instead of this Court going into merits of the matter, the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the said representation expeditiously, for which course of action, the learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent-the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.07.2009, and take necessary action against the sixth respondent, after issuing notice to him, expeditiously. N.V.RAMANA, J Date: 14.09.2009 va