IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8157 of 2009 Between: Rajender Pershad Sanghi S/o.Late Bajrang Pershad Sanghi R./o.8-2-583/2 Sri Lakshmi Nivas, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner and Special Officer 2 Greater Hyderabad Municiapl Corporation, Circle No.IV (Old circle No.II) Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad rep. by its Deputy Commissioner 3 Syed Mohd.Aziz-ul-Huda S/o.Late Mohd.Qumer-ul-Huda R/o.22-6-637, Mir alam Mandi,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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1&2 in not initiating any action to demolish the illegal structures raised by the 3rd respondent without obtaining any permission on the property bearing Municipal No.22-6-637 (Part) situated at Mir-alam Mandi, Hyderabad in pursuance of Telegraphic Notice dated 23.3.2009 given by the petitioner as arbitrary, discriminatory illegal, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and the provisions of Hyderabad Municiapl Corporation Act and consequently direct the respondents 1&2 to demolish the illegal, structures raised by the 3rd respondent and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SHIV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he sent a Telegraphic Notice dated 23.03.2009 by way of representation requesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take steps to demolish the illegal constructions being made by the unofficial respondent by encroaching into his property bearing Municipal No.22-6-638, the official respondents have not initiated any action against the 3rd respondent nor passed any orders on his representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Having regard to the fact that the representation dated 23.03.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner is pending consideration before respondent Nos.1 and 2, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel have agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The official respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dated 23.03.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, after issuing notice to the unofficial respondent and considering the objections, if any raised by him, in accordance with law, expeditiously.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 21st April, 2009 Note: Furnish copy in two days B/o bcj