HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.4172, 4203 & 4253 OF 2010 W.P. No.4172 of 2010 Between M/s. Gopala Krishna Builders. ….PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad and others. ……RESPONDENTS W.P. No.4203 of 2010 Between R.Tirupathaiah and another. ….PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad and others. W.P. No.4253 of 2010 Between Smt D.Nagamani. ….PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad and others. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.4172, 4203 & 4253 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and, at their request the writ petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission. These writ petitions are filed seeking a direction from this Court to declare the inaction of the respondents in releasing the approved building plan for construction of residential apartment (stilt + 5 floors) in plot Nos.839 & 841 in Sy.No.218/1 Defence Colony, Malkajigiri, Ranga Reddy District as per the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) letter dated 29.10.2007 as illegal and without jurisdiction, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the approved building plan for construction of residential apartment (stilt + 5 floors) in plot Nos.839 & 841 in Sy.No.218/1 Defence Colony, Malkajigiri , Ranga Reddy District as per HUDA letter dated 29.10.2007. It is the case of the petitioners that, since they have already obtained technical sanction of the HUDA vide proceedings dated 29.10.2007, and the said proceedings were forwarded to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), the latter cannot now independently assess and determine whether or not sanction is to be accorded and, in view of the provisions of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short ‘the Act’), the GHMC has only to perform the ministerial act of automatically according sanction and to release the approved building plan. However, Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would fairly state that it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine whether or not technical approval granted by the HUDA would necessitate automatic approval being accorded by the GHMC and it would suffice, for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, if the respondents herein were directed to consider the petitioners applications strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the rules and the building bye-laws framed thereunder, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a specified time frame. Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the G.H.M.C., would submit that the respondents have no objection to consider the petitioners applications in accordance with law. In these circumstances the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the petitioners applications, in accordance with law including the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the rules and the building bye-laws made thereunder within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate its decision to the petitioners. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:10.03.2010 Note:Furnish copy within one week bo usd