HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 3564 of 2008 Oral order: Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1, namely Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, in not removing the constructions made by respondent No.2 in deviation of the sanctioned plan as well as the Zoning and Building Regulations, as admitted by respondent No.1 in his counter-affidavit filed in C.C. No. 848 of 2007, as being illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.1 filed counter admitting that respondent No.2 has made certain constructions in deviation of the sanctioned plan, but submitted that since the application made by respondent No.2 under the Building Penalization and Regularization Scheme, framed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 901, MA & UD, dated 31.12.2007, seeking regularization of the constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan, is pending consideration, they have not taken any action for removal of the constructions. He further submitted that the validity of the Building Penalization and Regularization Scheme, is pending consideration by a Division Bench of this Court, and based on the outcome of the said matter, they will take appropriate action. Respondent No.2, namely M/s. Dorababu Designers and Constructions, who is said to have made the constructions in deviation of the sanctioned plan, has filed counter. As directed by this Court, the petitioner impleaded the flat owners, who purchased the flats in the building in question, constructed by respondent No.2 as party-respondent Nos. 3 to 24 to the writ petition. The writ petition as against respondent Nos. 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20 and 23 was dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 17.11.2008. Some of the unofficial impleaded respondents against whom the writ petition was not dismissed filed counter. Both respondent No.2 and the unofficial impleaded respondents, who filed counter, have taken a stand that they have made applications for regularization of the constructions, which are pending consideration and contend that they are entitled to regularization of the constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Heard the petitioner-party in person, who appeared in person before the Court, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for some of unofficial impleaded respondents, who filed counter. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondents that unless the writ petition questioning the validity of the Building Penalization and Regularization Scheme, is finally disposed of, no action can be taken on the applications of respondent Nos. 2 and other unofficial respondents, filed by them seeking regularization of the constructions, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent No.1 before passing any final orders on the applications of respondent No. 2 and other unofficial respondents, filed for regularization of the constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan, shall issue notice to the petitioner, and after considering the objections, if any, to be filed by him, pass orders on the regularization applications. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 12th March, 2009 KSR