IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22061 of 2008 Between: K.Vinod Rao S/o.K.Prakash Rao R/o.H.No.1-1-712, 2nd floor Street No.9, Gandhinagar,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Hyderabad 2 The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad Head office, Hyderabad 3 The Assistant City Planner Circle -III,Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Abids,Hyderabad 4 Mamidala Rekha W/o.M.Srinivas R/o.H.No.1-7-712/B Street No.9, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of representation dated 14.7.2008 & 9.9.2008 of the petitioner in accordance with law holding the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in not taking any action to stop the illegal construction being proceeded with by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.I.MAAMU VANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by K.Vinod Rao assailing the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 on his representations dated 14.7.2008 & 9.9.2008 complaining the unauthorized constructions being made by Mamidala Rekha-4th respondent. The petitioner claims to be neighbour to the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, 4 th respondent is proceeding with the constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan and therefore, representations have been made by him on 14.7.2008 & 9.9.2008. There being no action on the representations, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of R1 to R3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of R1 to R3. The factual aspect of the petitioner submitting representations on 14.7.2008 & 9.9.2008 is not controverted. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 14.7.2008 & 9.9.2008 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after putting the affected party i.e., 4th respondent on notice. __________ 14-10-2008 rkk