THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26665 of 2007 Dated: 08.02.2008 Between: T. Subbalakshmi … Petitioner AND Visakhapatnamd Uraban Development Authority, rep., by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D. V. Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for respondents 1&2 : Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri N. Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondents 4&5 : None THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26665 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 16.06.2007 of respondent No.2. At the interlocutory stage the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the layout in respect of Ac.4.00 of land in Sy.Nos.46/2 and 16/3 of Kurmannapalem is kept in abeyance until issues raised by the owners of plots/members of Mathrusree Cooperative House Building Society layout are resolved. Today, I disposed of Writ Petition No.23078 of 2007 and batch in respect of a larger extent of area for which a layout was kept in abeyance for the same reasons. This Court took note of the counter-affidavit filed therein and held that the reasons, which impelled respondent Nos.1 and 2 to keep the said layout in abeyance, no longer exist. It is agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that respondent Nos.1 and 2 passed the impugned order in this case for the same reasons for which the layout in the said cases was kept in abeyance. Following the reasons contained in the order passed in Writ Petition No.23078 of 2007 and batch, proceedings dated 16.06.2007 are set aside. Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that subsequent to the passing of order dated 16.06.2007, several irregularities committed by the petitioner came to light and that unless the petitioner takes remedial steps in rectifying those irregularities, final layout cannot be released. Since the alleged irregularities did not find a place in the impugned order, this Court refrains from giving any finding thereon. Liberty is, however, given to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to communicate the alleged irregularities to the petitioner and give an opportunity of filing objections and personal hearing to the petitioner and pass an order thereon, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, she shall be free to avail remedies available to her in law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.34796 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.02.2008 ES