IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 6098 of 2009 Between: 1. Dr. T. Vijaykumari D/o. T. Laxma Reddy R/o. 5-9-89 (portion), Chapel Road, Faiteh Maidan, Hyderabad. 2 G. Vinay Reddy S/o. G. Subhash Reddy R/o. 5-9-89 (portion), Chapel Road, Faiteh Maidan, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Maphar Constructions, a partnership, rep. by its Mg. Partner Mr. Farhath Ullah Jaweed, S/o. Late Inayath Ullah Khan having their office at 102, Maphar Exotica, 10-2-289/7/A, Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 T. Sandhya W/o. Late T. Vijay Bhasker Reddy R/o. 5-9-89, Chapel Road, Faiteh Maidan, Hyderabad. 4 T. Lakshita Reddy D/o. Late T. Vijay Bhasker Reddy (minor), rep. by her mother & natural guardian Res.No.3, R/o. 5-9-89, Chapel Road, Faiteh Maidan, Hyderabad. 5 T. Laxman Reddy S/o. Late T. Vijay Bhasker Reddy (minor), rep. by her monther & natural guardian Res.No.3, R/o. 5- 9-89, Chapel Road, Faiteh Maidan, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an appropriate writ, order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not considering / acting upon the complaints of the writ petitioners received by them on 24.2.2009 and 28.2.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 5 herein to stop the construction activity forthwith over the subject premises bearing No.5-9-89 (portion), situated at Chapel Road, Faiteh Maidan, Hyderabad, and also direct the respondent No.1 to take appropriate action against the respondents No.2 to 5 for violation of Building Bye-laws; and issue such other Writ, or order/s or direction/s, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, and in the best interest of justice, and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.SRINIVAS PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6098 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in not considering the complaints of the writ petitioners dated 24.2.2009 and 28.2.2009 with regard to the alleged illegal constructions being made by the respondents 2 to 5 herein in the premises bearing No.50-9-1989 situated at Chapel Road, Fateh Maidan, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal. Though in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners alleged various deviations from the sanctioned plan, the same have been categorically denied by the respondents 2 to 5 in their counter affidavit. This Court cannot make an enquiry into such disputed question of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and record any finding as to the allegations made by the petitioners. However, since the petitioners have already made complaints dated 24.2.2009 and 28.2.2009, the corporation is bound to make necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law so as to stop illegal constructions, if any made by the respondents 2 to 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the complaints of the petitioners dated 24.2.2009 and 28.2.2009 and pass appropriate orders after getting the allegations enquired through the competent authority. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after due notice to both parties. The interim order, granted by this Court, restraining the respondents 2 to 5 from making constructions, shall continue till appropriate orders are passed by the competent authority following due process of law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:05.06.2009 Note:Issue CC by Monday. B/O mrb