IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22982 of 2008 Between: 1 M/s.Lutheran Laity Movement (Reg.No.80/1999), Guntur rep.by its Vice President G.I.Dayaradhana Rao, S/o.Gurindapalli David, R/o.MIG 60 APHB Colony Guntur City &District 2 G.I.Dayardhana Rao S/o.Gurindapalli David R/o.MIG 60,APHB Colony, Guntur City & District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Department of Municipal Administration & Urban Development , Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation Guntur City &District 3 The City Planner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur City & District 4 Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, Guntur, rep. by its President Rev.V.E.Christopher,S/o.Krupa Das Becker Compound, Brodipet, Guntur City &District 5 Karlapudi Babu Prakash S/o.Devasahayam R/o.16/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City & District 6 A.S.Krishna son of and age not known to the petitioners of Donka Road Balaji Decorators & Tent House Upstairs Aruna Graphics, 14/1,Arundalpet Guntur City & District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction especially writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not initiating any action on the representation of the petitioner society dated 7.10.2008 and 10.10.2008 and in not stopping illegal, construction in the Becker Compound ,Brodipet, Guntur city as arbitrary, illegal, and high handed one apart from violative of Articles,14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to demolish the illegal, constructions raised in the Becker Compound , Brodipet, Guntur City and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.22982 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners who are 2 in number assailing the inaction of respondents 1 to 3 on the representation dated 7.10.2008 and 10.10.2008. 2. The petitioners claim to be interested in protecting the property of the 4th respondent. The 5th respondent took the premises on lease from the 4th respondent. According to the petitioners, the 5th respondent did not pay the rent and instead proceeded to demolish the structures and commenced the construction of new premises. They submitted representations to respondents 1 to 3 complaining illegal constructions made by the 5th respondent. There being no action, the petitioners chose to approach this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 5th respondent having taken the premises on lease from the 4th respondent demolished the structures and commenced construction of new building without there being any permission and therefore, necessary directions are required to be given to respondents 1 to 3 to stop illegal constructions being made by 5th respondent. 5. Indisputably, the premises belongs to the 4th respondent. The 5th respondent is stated to be a tenant of the premises. If there is any violation of the terms of the lease, it is for the 4th respondent who has to take action. The dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and the 5th respondent on the other hand is purely a private dispute and there is no public law element involved in this writ petition. Therefore, invoking jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the circumstances is misconceived and the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 22-10-2008 Stp