IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2137 of 2009 Between: 1 M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. Rep. by its Company Secretary Having its Regd. Office at No.1, Golf View, Airport Road, Bangalore - 560 008. 2 M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Having its Regd. Office at No.1, Golf View, Airport Road, Bangalore - 560 008. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 M/s. Bagga Hotel Constructions 22/A, M.L.A. Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 003. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of writ of "Mandamus" declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein in not discharging their statutory duties by initiating action against the illegal construction being made by the 3rd respondent herein in Municipal No.6-3-248, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad admeasuring about 1,449.49 Sq. yds. in exercise of their duties under the provisions of the Hyderabad _ Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to demolish the illegal construction made by the 3rd respondent in the said property. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2137 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioners, the petitioner Company has entered into a lease agreement dated 06.12.2004 with the 3rd respondent and, in terms of the said agreement, the 3rd respondent was required to construct a building consisting of double basement, ground plus six floors and terrace above it, in the land belonging to it, after obtaining the required approvals in that regard from the concerned authorities, and lease out the said premises to the petitioner Company. It is the case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent has committed breach of certain terms and conditions of the said lease agreement and in that regard certain civil disputes have been raised, which are still pending. It is also the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent Corporation has accorded sanction to the 3rd respondent for construction of cellar, ground plus four floors only, but the 3rd respondent has been making constructions in deviation of the said sanctioned plan and also contrary to the terms of lease agreement, and therefore, the petitioner Company has made a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 on 13.10.2008, bringing to their notice the illegal constructions being made by the 3rd respondent in violation of the sanctioned plan, and requested to take necessary action. The grievance of the petitioners is that no action has been taken so far on the said representation. Today, when the matter came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submits that the 3rd respondent has already submitted an application to the Corporation for regularization of the constructions made by it in deviation of the sanctioned plan and the same is pending consideration. In view of the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel and in view of the fact that certain civil disputes are pending between the parties, the relief as sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 9th February, 2009 IBL