THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3627 of 2009 DATED:22.12.2009 Between: G.Rama Rao ..Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3627 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the resident of premises bearing No.4-2-244, Old Bhoiguda, Secunderabad. He filed various representations before respondents 1 to 3, alleging that respondents 4 to 7 have made constructions in his immediate neighbourhood contrary to the building bye-laws and contrary to or without permission. This writ petition is filed alleging that respondents 1 to 3 did not take any steps on the representations, and appropriate directions are sought. Initially, notice before admission was issued on 25.02.2009. The petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.10302 of 2009 with a prayer to permit him to amend the description of the property. That was allowed on 27.04.2009. Thereafter, on 28.05.2009, the writ petition was admitted and an interim order was passed in W.P.M.P.No.4724 of 2009 to the effect that respondents 1 to 3 shall stop the construction activities of respondents 4 to 7. Counter affidavits are filed by respondents 1 to 3, on the one hand, and the respondents 4 to 7, on the other. It is stated that acting on the interim directions issued by this Court on 28.05.2009, certain portions of the building constructed by respondents 4 to 7 were demolished on 05.09.2009 by the Corporation. Respondents 4 to 7 state that they made an attempt to obtain interim orders from this Court by filing writ petitions, through House Motions, but the same, however, did not fructify. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, and learned counsel for the respondent 4 to 7. The grievance of the petitioner stands redressed in view of the developments that took place after the writ petition was filed. The construction to which the petitioner raised objection was removed. It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondents 1 to 3 have issued notice to the petitioner also alleging certain violations as regards the house constructed by him. Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 submits that further action needs to be taken on that also. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, taking on record the representation, as regards, the demolition undertaken by respondents 1 to 3 on 05.09.2009, vis-à-vis, the constructions made by respondents 4 to 7, and as notice issued to the petitioner. Further steps, if any, shall be taken in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 22nd December 2009 KH