IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23701 of 2008 Between: Mr. Buddhadeb Baksh & others. … Petitioners And The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G. Rama Gopal Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri C. Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondents 3&4: Sri P. Shiv Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23701 of 2008 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not preventing raising of unauthorised constructions on third and fourth floors by respondent Nos.3 to 6, as illegal and arbitrary. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that as the applications filed by the private respondents for regularisation of the constructions made in violation of the sanctioned plan under Building Penalization Scheme (BPS) are pending, no action was taken and that by proceedings, dated 31.12.2010, the said applications were disposed of. Sri Shiv Kumar, learned counsel representing the private respondents, placed before the Court three proceedings, dated 31.12.2010, under which the unauthorised constructions are purportedly regularised. Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, raised serious objection to the indifferent attitude of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not responding to the legitimate grievance of the petitioners in the guise of pendency of BPS applications and eventually regularising the blatantly unauthorised constructions raised not only by increasing the number of floors, but also by indulging in serious set back violations. Even though this Court finds substance in the grievance of the petitioners, the fact, however, remains that the applications of respondent Nos.3 to 6 were evidently accepted and orders, regularising the unauthorised constructions, were made in their favour by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Unless the petitioners avail appropriate remedy in order to question those orders, no relief, as claimed in this Writ Petition, can be granted at this stage. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to question the regularisation orders. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.30903 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.08.2011 ES