THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.3575 of 2009 Dated 10th June, 2011 Between: Renduchintala Veera Malleswari …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.V.Krishnaiah Counsel for respondent No.1: Smt.G.Jhansi Counsel for respondent No.2: GP for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not passing final order in pursuance of notice issued by him vide his proceedings bearing UC.No.6/06/95-B.O.IV, dated 20.04.2006, and not demolishing the unauthorised construction made by respondent No.3 in deviation of the approved layout plan as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are neighbours. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that noticing the deviations, respondent No.1 has issued notice, dated 20.04.2006, under Section 42(1) of the A.P.Urban (Development) Act, 1975 and under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Respondent No.3 filed W.P.No.20754 of 2006 in this Court challenging the said notice. The said writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 29.09.2006, wherein this Court has permitted respondent No.3 to submit her explanation to respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks with the direction to the latter to consider the same and pass an order in accordance with law. A further direction was given to maintain status quo till passing such an order. As no order was passed by respondent No.1 as directed by this Court, the petitioner filed a representation on 11.08.2006 before respondent No.1 and also on 18.10.2006. Respondent No.1 issued notice, dated 27.02.2007, to the petitioner to appear at the site on 06.03.2007 at 9.00 am, on which date, a survey was conducted. As no further action was taken, the petitioner caused a legal notice issued on 27.04.2007 to respondent No.1 and a further reminder was made on 18.05.2007. On 30.03.2007, respondent No.1 issued proceedings, wherein it was informed that the balconies raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan were departmentally removed, that further works on the side of the petitioner’s building were stopped and that the remaining neighbours have no objection for construction of the building with Ground + 2 floors. Questioning the action of respondent No.1 in not removing the entire structure raised in contravention of the sanctioned plan, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that in pursuance of the representations made by the petitioner, the unauthorised projections made by respondent No.3 on the side of the petitioner’s building were demolished. It is further stated that respondent No.3 has submitted an application under Building Penalisation Scheme (BPS), which was taken on file as BPS No.4673 of 2008, for regularisation of the unauthorised construction and that the same is pending. Respondent No.1 also stated that the construction made by the petitioner itself is unauthorised. No reply affidavit is filed contraverting the above allegations. At the hearing, Smt.G.Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1, submitted that since the application filed by respondent No.3 for regularisation of the unauthorised construction under BPS is pending, no further action for removal of the offending projections on the petitioner’s side has been taken. She stated that as soon as the application of respondent No.3 for regularisation of the unauthorised constructions is disposed of, further action will be taken. In the light of the facts noted above, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (1) Respondent No.1 shall dispose of the application of respondent No.3 filed under BPS, if not already disposed of, within a period of two weeks from today; (2) he shall take further action depending upon the outcome of the result of the application filed by respondent No.3; and (3) liberty is also given to respondent No.1 to examine whether the building constructed by the petitioner is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, if any, and appropriate action shall be taken in the event it is found that the petitioner’s construction is unauthorised. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.4639 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th June, 2011 VGB