IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 16824 of 2008 Between: 1 A. Yadagiri S/o. A. Rajaiah H.No.16-11-27/A, Moosaram bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad-36. 2 A. Sadanand S/o. Swami H.No.16-11-39, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad-36. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Malakpet P.S., Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 4 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 5 M.A. Sami R/o.16-11-23/87, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in not taking any action against representation dt. 18.07.2008 & 15.05.2008 respectively as against the principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the statutory law and violative of Article 14, 19 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein to take action and stop the construction of mosque in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein it has been alleged that respondent No.5 is constructing some structures without any sanction from respondent No.4-Municipality. On 4-8-2008 notices had been issued calling upon respondent No.5 to produce a copy of the sanctioned plan, whereas respondent no.4 was directed to ﬁnd out whether any plan for construction of any structures on the land in question has been sanctioned. Learned Advocate Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy appearing for respondent No.4 has submitted that no plan for construction of mosque has been sanctioned by respondent No.4, whereas respondent No.5 has prayed for time. In view of the fact that respondent No.4 has not sanctioned any plan for construction of any structures/mosque on the land in question, respondent No.5 is restrained from putting any structure on the land in question unless the plan for some construction is sanctioned. Respondent No.4 is directed to see that no construction should be put up on the land question unless there is a sanctioned plan for some construction. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ___________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ___________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 26th August, 2008 Note: Operative portion by wire at party’s costs. /B.O/ GRR