IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14419 of 2009 Between: P.Vijayasri W/o.Late P.Krishnama Chary R/o.H.No.2-3-6/D/2, Tirumalanagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Additional Commissioner (P&P) G.H.M.C., Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 Chief City Planner, G.H.M.C., Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 The Zonal Commissioner (Central Zone), G.H.M.C., Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant City Planner, Circle-9, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Buildings, Abids, Hyderabad. 6 The Chief Vigilance Officer, Vigilance & Enforcement Cell, G.H.M.C., Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 7 Y.Jayapal Reddy S/o.Late Ranga Reddy R/o.2-3-64/D/1, Tirumalanagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents 1 to 6 in not taking action against 7th respondent, inspite of repeated complaints dated 19.6.2009, 22.6.2009 and 30.6.2009 by me and not removing the illegal construction in premises No. 2-3-64/D/1, Tirumulanagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, further trying to regularize the unauthorized constructions vide file No.7524/BPS/CZ/C9/08, inspite of my pretest, as illegal and arbitrary and against the guidelines issued by this Hon'ble in W.P. No.1069 of 2008 and batch, consequently direct the respondent 1 to 6 to initiate action by not regularizing the illegal constructions made by 7th respondent and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14419 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the House bearing No.2-3-64/D/2, Tirumalanagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. It is alleged that the 7th respondent herein, who is the owner of the adjacent premises bearing No.2-3-64/D/1, had constructed a building consisting of ground and two upper floors without maintaining the set backs, as required under law. That apart, the 7th respondent had encroached upon the public lane and constructed a compound wall. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 to 6 requesting to take necessary action for removal of the illegal and unauthorised constructions. However, the respondents 1 to 6 failed to respond and in the meanwhile, the 7th respondent had made an application for regularization of the said unauthorised and illegal constructions under Building Penalization Scheme, vide file No.7524/BPS/CZ/C9/08. Having come to know about the steps being taken by the 7th respondent under the Building Penalization Scheme, the petitioner had made a fresh representation on 22.06.2009 bringing to the notice of the respondents 1 to 6 the illegal constructions made by the 7th respondent in spite of the objections raised by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 6 in considering the petitioner’s representation dated 22.6.2009, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6. The material on record shows that the representation/ complaint made by the petitioner was received in the office of the respondents 1 to 6 on 22.6.2009. In the circumstances, the respondents 1 to 6 are bound to consider the objections raised by the petitioner before taking any action on the request of the 7th respondent for regularization under the Building Penalization Scheme. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the representation/complaint dated 22.06.2009 made by the petitioner and make necessary enquiry after due notice to all the parties concerned before taking any decision on File No.7524/BPS/CZ/C9/08 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Such an exercise shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J 20th July 2009 Note:- Issue C.C in 2 days (B/o) RAR THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14419 of 2009 DATED : 20-07-2009