HON’BLE JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 15891 of 2009 WEDNESDAY THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 Between: Varun Enclave Owners Welfare Association .. Petitioner And The Municipal Corpn. of Vijayawada, Rep. By Commissioner and another .. Respondents O R D E R:- The assertion of the petitioner-M/s. Varun Enclave Owners Welfare Association, is that the residential flats in the Building situated at H. No. 24-2-1 admeasuring 572 Sq. yards, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District were sold in favour of the petitioner by one K. Nagendra Prasad through his GPA holders namely M. Harinath and K. Venkata Subba Rao, by executing an agreement of sale dated 13.03.2005 registered sale deed dated 28.03.2007 in respect of the residential flat in favour of one M.K.S. Teja. While so, the 2nd respondent made an application to the 1st respondent-Corporation seeking conversion of the residential apartment in to commercial apartment. Then, the petitioner filed objections dated 23.5.2009 to the 1st respondent for the conversion on the ground floor stating that the entire complex is consisting of families and requested him to take action against the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.126 of 2009 seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 28.3.2007 executive in favour of the 3rd respondent and the building of the apartment filed an application in the suit seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from making any construction in the flat and the learned II Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada grated ad-interim injunction. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that even though the petitioner made objections on 23.5.2009, the 1st respondent has neither considered the same nor taken any action against the 2nd respondent, and more so, on 14.7.2009, the 2nd respondent, along with five unknown persons damaged and made a hole in front of the gage and thereby caused obstructions to their ingress and egress into the apartment and put locks to the northern side gate illegally. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the record, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Commissioner of Vijayawada Municipality is directed to consider the objections dated 23.5.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner and examine the issue after issuing notice to the 2nd respondent, and then and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously, and thereafter take necessary action in accordance therewith.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 5th August, 2009 bcj