THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.18736 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner states that he is the owner of the premises bearing No.7-8-5, Nageswar Rao Street, Ramaraopeta, Kakidanada. According to him, the 3rd respondent, who is the immediate neighbour in an extent of 182 sq. yards, commenced the construction without obtaining any permission from the Municipal Corporation and without following the Building Bye-laws. Initially, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent with a request to furnish a copy of the building permission accorded, if any, to the 3rd respondent. A reply was issued to the effect that, due to want of particulars, they are unable to accede to the request of the petitioner. This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 (for short ‘the Corporation’) in not taking any steps against the illegal construction undertaken by the 3rd respondent. On behalf of the Corporation, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the 3rd respondent was accorded permission vide proceedings dated 29-12-2004, for construction of a residential building, comprising of ground plus two upper floors, and that the construction undertaken by him is strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Heard Sri D. Hanmantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel for the Corporation. The petitioner is under the impression that the 3rd respondent commenced the construction without obtaining permission from the Corporation. It has been clearly stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the Corporation that permission was accorded vide proceedings dated 29-12-2004. Unless the petitioner is clear about the nature of permission accorded to the 3rd respondent, he cannot assert that there existed any violations on the part of the 3rd respondent. Even now, the petitioner can obtain a copy of the sanctioned plan and submit a representation to the Corporation, if he notices any deviations in the construction. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that, a) in case the petitioner submits application to the Corporation to furnish a copy of the plan, sanctioned through proceedings dated 29-12-2004, it shall forthwith furnish the same, by collecting the prescribed fee; b) if, on verification of the plan and the situation obtaining on the site, the petitioner notices any deviations on the part of the 3rd respondent, it shall be open to him to file representation to the Corporation; and c) the Corporation shall take necessary steps in accordance with law, on any representation, that may be made by the petitioner, duly issuing notice to the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-02-2011. KO