THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.926 of 2006 ORDER: With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not taking any action on his representation regarding illegal construction of first and second floors on shop No.7-12, admeasuring 154 sq.feet, situated at Madhurapuri Gaddi Annaram, Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of his representation, dated 16.09.2005, stating that the second respondent, who is the owner of shop bearing No.7-12 is proceeding with the illegal construction of first and second floors, no action is being taken. A counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent – Commissioner, Gaddiannaram Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations levelled by the petitioner, it is stated that the second respondent applied for building permission for construction of RCC shop in ground floor, and first floor, on 10.11.2005 and the said building permission was refused, as the plans submitted by him were not in conformity with the building rules, zoning regulations and G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 31.07.1998. It is further stated that the second respondent filed O.S.No.3372 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and obtained injunction in I.A.No.4707 of 2005. It is also stated that with reference to the representation of the petitioner, the first respondent vide proceedings, dated 27.12.2005, issued notice as contemplated under Section 228(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, to the second respondent. In view of issuance of notice by the first respondent in exercise of powers under Section 228(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, it cannot be said that no action has been taken by the first respondent on the alleged illegal constructions undertaken by the second respondent. As it is stated that the second respondent has filed O.S.No.3372 of 2005 and obtained injunction orders in I.A.No.4707 of 2005, it is open to the petitioner to seek his impleadment in the suit and obtain appropriate orders, but in this writ petition, no directions can be issued as prayed for. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th SEPTEMBER, 2010. kvni