THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19943 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No.10-2-385/D, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. In his immediate neighbourhood, the 3rd respondent started construction in the year 2007, without any permission. The petitioner submitted representations on 09-04-2007 and 10-07-2007 to the respondents 1 and 2, with a prayer to take necessary action. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 and 2 did not take any steps in the matter. The Assistant City Planner, the 2nd respondent herein, filed a counter-affidavit. According to him, the number of the premises, on which the 3rd respondent is said to have started construction, was not correctly stated, and in that view of he matter, no steps could be taken. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, this Court has taken a serious exception to the attitude exhibited by the 2nd respondent. He filed a further counter-affidavit, stating that a thorough inspection was undertaken, and on finding that the 3rd respondent started unauthorized construction, steps were initiated by issuing notices, etc. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent has since filed an application seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31- 12-2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 are under obligation to ensure that no construction takes place without permission and contrary to law. Even if there was any lapse on their part, they ought to have taken steps, when a representation was made by the petitioner. Those representations, however, did not evoke any response from them. It is rather surprising that, even after the writ petition is filed by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent continued to exhibit the same indifference, and take shelter on the so-called mistake in furnishing the house number. No efforts were made to visit the neighbourhood of the petitioner, much less, get the particulars from the petitioner, in case there existed any ambiguity. The continued inaction by respondents 1 and 2 became handy for the 3rd respondent, to seek regularization. The 2nd respondent ought to have been more careful and vigilant in the matter. Now that the 3rd respondent has submitted an application seeking regularization, the petitioner can raise objections for it, before the 1st respondent. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that, it shall be open to the petitioner to raise objections for the application submitted by the 3rd respondent, seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction made by him. The respondents 1 and 2 shall take the same into account, before any order of regularization is passed, in favour of the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14-02-2011. KO