HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9656 of 2009 Date:07.09.2011 Between: Dr.Velpula Prem Sagar ..... Petitioner AND Warangal Municipal Corporation, reptd by its Commissioner, Warangal District and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Jalakam Sampath Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy Learned Standing Counsel for Municipality Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Jalli Narender For Sri Jalli Kanakaiah The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that despite issuing notice under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, (for short ‘the Act’) on 13.04.2009, respondent No.1 has not taken any action in respect of the alleged illegal constructions made by respondent No.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Jalli Narender, learned counsel representing Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2. At the hearing, learned Standing Counsel conceded that the notice under Section 452 of the Act, as noted above, was already issued by respondent No.1 and that, at the moment, he does not have instructions as to whether further action was taken in pursuance of the said notice. Even the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is unable to state whether any action was taken by respondent No.1 consequent on the notice issued under Section 452 of the Act. In my opinion, if respondent No.2 has carried out illegal constructions either without sanctioned plan or in violation of the sanctioned plan, it is the bounden duty of respondent No.1 to take appropriate action in accordance with Sections 452 and 636 of the Act. If no further action has been taken in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 452 of the Act, respondent No.1 is directed to act in accordance with the procedure envisaged in the above mentioned two provisions, after considering the explanation, if any, filed by respondent No.2, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.12564 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th September, 2011 DR