IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26094 of 2010 Between: Kura Mahesh & another ..... Petitioners AND The Grampanchayat, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Ramayampet Village & Mandal, Medak District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri G. Eligho Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26094 of 2010 ORDER: Additional affidavit is filed and the same is taken on record. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 has called for a report from the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.1 Grampanchayat, who has no power or authority to inspect and submit a report. The further grievance of the petitioners is that without any order being passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is interfering with the construction being undertaken by them. A perusal of the impugned memo shows that respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.1 to stop the construction being raised by the petitioners, if it is illegal and submit a report within eight days. In my opinion, respondent No.2 was guarded in his approach in directing the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.1 to stop the construction, if the same is found to be illegal. However, the fact that a report is called for shows that respondent No.2 is proposing to hold an enquiry before an order is passed. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned memo. However, before passing any order adverse to the interests of the petitioners, respondent No.2 shall give notice to the petitioners and consider the objections, if any to be filed by them, including the competence of the Panchayat Secretary to submit a report. The petitioners shall construct the building strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and if any deviations are noticed by respondent No.1, it shall report the same to respondent No.2, who shall decide the matter after hearing the petitioners. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.33326 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 28.10.2010 ES