IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.21599 of 2011 Between: Bongu Sridhar and others. … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Venkatesh for Sri N.Ravi Prasad. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Municipal Administration for R.1. Sri N.Ranga Reddy for R.2 None for R.3. Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad for R.4. None for R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in preventing respondent No.5 from erecting cell tower on the roof top of Panchavati Community Hall, Panchavati Township, Akkireddipalem, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. Even though notice on respondent No.5 is not served as yet, in the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to put it on notice. The Commissioner of respondent No.2-Corporation has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that on receiving legal notice from the petitioners, the officials of respondent No.2 inspected the Panchavati colony and stopped erection of cell tower; and that action has been initiated by issuing notice under 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) calling upon respondent No.5 to show cause as to why action shall not be initiated against the unauthorized erection of cell tower. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that the cell tower is not fully erected; and that all measures will be taken by respondent No.2 to ensure that the cell tower is not operated and appropriate action for removal of the cell tower will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act unless respondent No.5 obtains permission from respondent No.2. The above submission of the learned Standing Counsel is placed on record and the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.26292 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------- -- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:08-9-2011 MNR