IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21751 of 2011 Between: A. Vijay Kumar … Petitioner And The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21751 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice, dated 16.07.2011, of the respondent. The background in which this Writ Petition is filed in brief is that one of the neighbours of the petitioner has complained that the petitioner has raised building in deviation of the sanctioned plan. As no action was taken thereon, he filed Writ Petition No.20145 of 2008. The respondent has pleaded in the said Writ Petition that the inspection of the petitioner’s building revealed that the construction raised by him was in violation of the sanctioned plan and he failed to maintain the minimum marginal open spaces besides increasing the area of construction; that when the matter was placed before the respondent-Board, it has issued notice under Section 248 of the Contonment Act, 2006 (for short, “the Act”) and that in pursuance of the decision taken in the Board meeting, letter dated 22.06.2007, was issued to the petitioner advising him to remove the unauthorised constructions within 30 days. As no response was forthcoming from the petitioner, the respondent has issued notice under Section 320 of the Act. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed an appeal before the General Officer, Command-in-Chief, Southern Command, Pune in July, 2007 and the same was stated to be pending. At the hearing of the said Writ Petition, it came to light that the respondent has issued notice, dated 16.07.2011. This Court, taking into consideration the abovementioned facts, disposed of the Writ Petition with the direction to the respondent to take up the consequential action after considering the objections, if any filed by the petitioner, within the time stipulated in notice, dated 16.07.2011. Subsequent to the disposal of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner is stated to have filed his objections, which are pending before the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition questioning notice, dated 16.07.2011. After hearing Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Standing counsel representing the respondent, I am of the opinion that the present Writ Petition, filed questioning notice, dated 16.07.2011, is misconceived for the reason that the said notice is only an offshoot of letter, dated 22.06.2007, and the notice issued under Section 320 of the Act, which is the subject matter of an appeal before the General Officer, Command-in-Chief, Southern Command, Pune. Even though the said appeal is stated to be pending from July 2007, the petitioner failed to obtain any interim order therein. Therefore, the respondent is justified in issuing the impugned notice. If the objections raised by the petitioner are sustainable in law, the respondent will consider the same and proceed according to law. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice issued by the respondent. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.26496 of 2011 is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.08.2011 ES