IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3958 of 2008 Between: 1 M.V. Sudhakar Rao S/o. Late M. Veer Laxmayya, R/o. 16-9-660, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. 2 M.V. Madhukar Rao S/o. Late M. Veer Laxmayya, R/o. 16-11-16/N/87, Prasanth Nagar (West), Old Malakpet, Hyderabad-36. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Circle No.3 (East Zone), Hyderabad. 3 Mrs. Ritika W/o. Captain Thomas R/o. B-197, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to declare the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 herein in spite of telegraphic requests made by the petitioners on 23.2.2008 regarding blocking of the approach road in front of residential complex known as Kalyani Plaza at Plot No.79, Green Hills Colony, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. K.VASUDEVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners, who are two in number, assailing the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 on the requests made by them through telegrams dated 23.02.2008 complaining the obstructions made by the 3rd respondent on a public road in front of their residential complex. 2. 1st petitioner claims to be the owner of Plot No.206 and 2nd petitioner claims to be the owner of Plot No.G4 situated in Kalyani Plaza at Plot No.79, Green Hills Colony, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The entire complex comprises of 28 plots. The 1st petitioner ﬁxed the house warming ceremony on 28.02.2008. Whileso, the petitioners noticed that 3rd respondent blocked the road, which gave access to their complex. The petitioners issued telegrams to the respondents 1 and 2 complaining the obstructions made by the 3rd respondent on the public road. There being no action on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 on the said telegrams, the petitioners approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel of GHMC received notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the barbed wire fencing put up by the 3rd respondent has been removed and therefore, there is no obstruction on the road, which gives access to the complex wherein the petitioners own plots. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the obstructions have not been completely removed. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order after putting on notice the aﬀected parties. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:28th August, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}