IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4101 of 2009 Between: B. Laxmi Bai W/o. P. Prabhakar Rao R/o. H.No. 6-2-876/1, I Floor, Thummalabasthi, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner & Special Officer, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Circle No.10, Khairtabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 P. Ramanaiah S/o. P.A.S. Narayana R/o. H.No.2-876/1, Thummalabasthi, Khairtabad, 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 an order or writ one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking action against the 3rd respondent for illegal construction made at eastern side of petitioners Flat bearing No.6-2-876/1, I Floor, situated at Thummalabasthi, Khairtabad, Hyderabad without obtaining permission and not stopping the construction is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and Rules. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner stating that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the flat bearing Municipal No.6-2- 876/1, 1st floor, situated at Thummalabasthi, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 13.9.2002. While so, she was transferred to Paloncha from Hyderabad and her husband was transferred to Visakhapatnam. While both of them were away from the city, the 3rd respondent herein, who is residing in the ground floor, started construction in the eastern side of the house without obtaining building permission from the Municipality and started obstructing ingress and egress of the flat owners. Therefore, she made a representation to the authorities bringing it to their notice to take action against the illegal construction. Since there was no response, she also sent a legal notice on 16.1.2009 to the municipal authorities, in vain. It is also stated that as the 3rd respondent started threatening her with dire consequences and encroaching into her area, she filed O.S.No.859 of 2009 on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained an injunction. The grievance of the petitioner is that the official respondents herein are not taking any action against the illegal construction raised by the 3rd respondent herein in spite of her representation and the legal notice. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that since the representation of the petitioner, followed by a legal notice dated 16.1.2009 is pending consideration with the respondents, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the same and take appropriate action, for which course of action, the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner expeditiously and take appropriate action on the same after issuing necessary notice to the 3rd respondent. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.2.3.2009 msv.