THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22238 of 2005 BETWEEN: Vijayendra Navada PETITIONERS And 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. S. Murthy Counsel for the respondent NO.1: G.P. for MA & UDA Counsel for the respondents 2 & 3: Smt. Dr. Y. Padmavathi The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish Flat Nos.A-1, A-2 comprised in premises No.8-2-683/A, in Bhadruka Enclave Apartments, Road No.12, Banjara Hills. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the said flats. Subsequent to his purchase, the area has become commercial, and consequently, the State Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.508, dated 15.11.2002 converting Road No.12 for commercial purpose. It is stated that the respondents served a notice on him on 22.05.2005 for demolition of the premises on the ground that the same has been converted for commercial purpose. In the circumstances, the petitioner made an application dated 17.08.2005 for permission to regularize his flats as commercial. The grievance of the petitioner is that without passing any orders on the said application, the respondents are insisting to demolish the flats. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner has made alterations to the flats and converted the same as commercial without obtaining any permission, hence the petitioner was served the impugned notices to remove the unauthorized constructions. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Although the petitioner sought for a writ challenging the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the structures and to set aside the notices dated 22.09.2005 and 3.10.2005, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would press for a limited relief that a direction may be given to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The learned Standing Counsel would, however, submit that the petitioner has not made any such application Even though, the respondents have denied that the petitioner has made any application, a perusal of the copy of the application dated 17.08.2005 shows that the petitioner has in fact made such application. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case whether the petitioner had in fact made an application and whether he is entitled for conversion of his flats as commercial, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate, to dispose of the writ petition in the following terms. 1. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh application seeking permission for conversion within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2. On receipt of such application, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter, and communicate the same to the petitioner. Status quo obtaining as on today in all respects shall be maintained by both the parties till the disposal of the application. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 17th March, 2011 Note: C.C. in one week. (B/o) Js.