IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11365 of 2002 Between: Sai Priya Flat Owner's Association, Sai Priay Apartments, Falt No. 101, Premises No. 12-2-790/77, Ayodhya Nagar Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad rep. by its G. Uma, W/o. R. Siva Prasad, Age '40' R/o. Plot 102-A, Sai priya Apartments. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, MCH Building, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle No. 4, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.---4. 3 Shri J Laxminarayana, S/o. Narayanaswamy, R/o. 12-2-790/30, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 4 M/s. Sri Sai Raj Construcion, A Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Managing Partner Smt. J. Vijayalakshmi, W/o. J. L Narayan, R/o. Plot No. 30,Ayodhya Nagar Colony,12-2-790/30, Hyderabad. 5 Shri G. Madhusudhana Rao, S/o. R/o. Residing in cellar 12-2-790/77 Sri Sai Priya Apartments, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.G.SUDHA Counsel for respondent Nos.1&2:SRI R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY (SC FOR GHMC) Counsel for respondents 3 to 5: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 in enforcing the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) in respect of building covered by permit bearing No.423/61 in file No.54/open/12/92/93 dated 18-05-1993 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Ms. G.Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 3 to 5 are not represented despite service of notices. The grievance of the petitioner association is that though respondents 3 to 5 converted the stilt area meant for watchman booth, electrician cabin and parking into a single room tenement under the sanctioned permit, respondents 1 and 2 have not been taking any action to remove the same. None of the respondents filed counter-affidavits. At the hearing, Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, confirmed that a part of the area in the stilt portion, earmarked for common amenities including parking, is converted into a single room tenement by respondent No.5. In the face of the admitted fact situation, it is surprising that respondent No.1 failed to take any action to ensure that the unauthorized constructions are removed. Mere pendency of this writ petition would not have precluded the Corporation from taking action in accordance with law, as the writ petition itself is filed complaining against its inaction in enforcing law. As respondents 3 to 5 failed to appear and controvert the plea raised by the petitioner, which is admitted by respondents 1 and 2, a mandamus shall issue to respondent No.1 to remove the unauthorized structures in the above mentioned premises, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after following the procedure prescribed by the provisions of the Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 17th March, 2009 vrn