THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32863 of 2010 Date: 28.12.2010 Between: Chindala Srinivas Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Jithender Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for Respondent No.4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the memo dated 18.12.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby he has directed respondent No.3 to take action for stopping the construction of building by the petitioner. The petitioner obtained permission from respondent No.3 for construction of a building. Respondent No.4 approached respondent No.1 against grant of building permission in favour of the petitioner. While entertaining the application of respondent No.4, respondent No.1 has issued the proceedings referred to above, wherein he has observed that under the relevant Rules, the Panchayat Secretary alone is competent to grant house building permission and that respondent No.3 has granted such permission, which is not valid in law and accordingly a direction was given to the Panchayat Secretary, Lingapur, to take action as per law for stopping the construction work. Sri V. Jithender Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the petitioner is the affected party, respondent No.1 has not heard him nor at least a copy of the impugned memo has been marked to him. He has further stated that even without hearing the petitioner, respondent No.1 has come to the conclusion that the building permission granted to him is not valid. I find some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent of the finding given by respondent No.1 on the nature of the building permission. The petitioner, who is the affected party, is bound to be heard by respondent No.1 before arriving at the conclusion that the permission granted to him is not valid. Inasmuch as the competence of respondent No.1 to decide on the validity or otherwise of the grant of building permission is not disputed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 is directed to entertain the application of the petitioner for vacating/modifying the memo impugned in this writ petition. If such an application is received, within four weeks of receipt of such application, respondent No.1 shall consider the same, in accordance with law, notwithstanding the opinion expressed by him in the impugned memo. Respondent No.1 shall pass a speaking order, after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.4, on the application that may be filed by the petitioner. If respondent No.1 does not pass an appropriate order within four weeks of receipt of the petitioner’s application, the impugned memo shall cease to operate on expiry of four weeks period. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41756 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th December, 2010 GHN