IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No : 3330 of 2008 Between: Sri Paresh Kumar M.Modi ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, having its Office at Tank Bund, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS Order: Questioning the inaction of the first respondent-GHMC in removing the unauthorized constructions being made by the second respondent in the premises bearing Municipal No.4-1-1051, Boggulkunta, Hyderabad, in spite of several complaints being made in this regard, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The first respondent-GHMC filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter, wherein it is stated that the wife of the second respondent was granted building permission in respect of the premises in question for construction of Ground + First Floor, and when she was making constructions in deviation to the sanctioned plan, the petitioner made a complaint to the first respondent, pursuant to which, the officials of the first respondent-GHMC inspected the premises and found that she raised constructions in deviation to the sanctioned plan. Therefore, the first respondent demolished the pillars raised for unauthorized constructions. Thereupon, the wife of the petitioner filed O.S.No.6728 of 2007 on the file of the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and also obtained stats quo orders. Therefore, it is stated that the first respondent is unable to take any action. The second respondent also filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit and contending that pursuant to the status quo orders in the suit, no construction work is carried on in the subject premises. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Corporation submitted that the pillars raised for construction of 2nd floor have already been removed (which fact was disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner) and further action on the deviated portion could not be taken up in view of the status quo orders in the suit. Across the Bar, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit filed by the wife of the second respondent was dismissed by the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In view of the submissions of the made by the learned counsel across the Bar and as the complaints made by the petitioner are pending consideration before the first respondent, interests of justice would be met if a direction is given to the first respondent to consider the complaints given by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent-GHMC to consider the complaints purported to have been made by the petitioner regarding the unauthorized constructions made by the second respondent in the premises in question and take necessary action thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously, after issuing notice to the second respondent. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:27.10.2009 VGB