IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 25663 of 2001 BETWEEN: 1 Nori Ravi Sankar, Rep. by its General Power of Attorney Holder, Sri N. Radhakrishna Murthy, S/o. Venkata Narasimham, R/o. Suryaraopet, Vijayawada-2. ... PETITIONER AND Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENT 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, ultra vires of the Provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also the mandatory provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and also directing not to interfere with the construction being made by the Petitioner in accordance with the Plan submitted by the Petitioner bearing B.A.No: 00595/2001 dated 30.3.2001 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent: MS. G. JHANSI The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in interfering with the construction being made by him in accordance with the plan submitted bearing B.A.No. 00595/2001 dated 30.03.2001 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Counter has been filed stating that the petitioner obtained permission for construction of the building in Rc.G5.B.A.No.595/2005 dated 11.05.2001. With regard to the alleged interference it is stated that the officials of the respondent corporation have threatened to demolish the said building. The allegations made by the petitioner are false and there is no truth in the said allegation. It is further stated that in the routine course of inspection only in the division the officials of the respondent corporation have inspected the construction but they did not threaten the petitioner or made an attempt to demolish the said building. 3. In view of the aforesaid contention in the counter stating that the respondent corporation did not interfere with the construction of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. However, if the respondents want to take action, they can take any action by following due process of law and by issuing any notice. The writ petition is accordingly dispose of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 10, 2008 DSK