THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.1344 OF 2004 Dated 31st December, 2009 Between: Mohd Ali Yadgar and two others …Petitioners And The Commissioner and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Syed Khader Masthan for Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for the respondents: None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners, who are the owners of Shop Nos.16, 19 and 21 and 22 respectively at Suryalok Complex, Abids, Hyderabad, is that respondent No.2 raised structure in gross violation of conditions laid down by respondent No.1 vide permit dated 31.08.1979. The petitioners further pleaded that in active collusion with respondent No.1, respondent No.2 has closed the cellar area totally and constructed a Zinc shed in the area left for set backs on the northern side and leased out the same to a Printing Press. The petitioners are stated to have given detailed representation dated 10.11.2003 to respondent No.1 pointing out the above mentioned irregularities with a request to him to take appropriate action for removal of the structures raised contrary to the permit conditions. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.1 in acting on the said representation. Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any counter-affidavit and no one appeared for them at the hearing. Respondent No.3, who is the Secretary of Suryalok Building Shops and Offices Owners Association, which is concerned with the area where respondent No.2 has allegedly raised unauthorised constructions, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he, inter alia, admitted that respondent No.2 has no right to construct a wall on the western side of the complex and therefore, the wall erected by him on the said site is unauthorised and deserves to be demolished. Respondent No.1 has not responded to the notice of this Court and he has failed to inform this Court whether any action has been taken by him on the representation submitted by the petitioners and if not the reason therefor. Respondent No.1, who is vested with the statutory obligation to initiate appropriate action for removal of unauthorised construction, cannot be complacent and indifferent to the grievances expressed by the affected parties. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, directed to act forthwith on the representation of the petitioners. If it is found that respondent No.2 has raised compound wall or any other structure contrary to the conditions contained in the permit, he shall take immediate steps to remove the same by following the prescribed procedure. The said action shall be initiated by respondent No.1 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 31st December, 2009 vrn