IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6981 of 2007 Between: V.Adiseshaiah S/o.Venkatramanaiah R/o.H.no.45, Bapu Bagh Colony, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 2 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Additional Commissioner, Secunderabad. 3 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its City Planner, Town Planning, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 4 Sri Anjaiah, R/o.1-8-32/44A, Bapu Bagh Colony, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in not initiating any action against the unauthorized construction made by the 4th respondent in the premises bearing D.No.1-8-32/44 A, Bapu Bagh Colony, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad, in spite of representations dt. 14.2.07 and 15.3.07 made by the petitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forth with act upon the representations dt. 14.2.2007 and 15.3.2007 of the petitioner by removing unauthorized constructions made by the petitioner in the said premises and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that though the 4th respondent is making construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan in the premises bearing door No. 1-8-32/44 A, Bapu Bagh Colony, Prederghast Road, Secunderabad and though he made representations dated 14-08-2007 and 15-03-2007 bringing the same to the notice of the respondent authorities, no action has been taken by them. When the writ petition is taken up for admission, the learned standing counsel has produced written instructions sent to him. It is evident from the written instructions that pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner, the official respondents have initiated proceedings by issuing show cause notice to the 4th respondent under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) and after expiry of the time given in the said notice, final notice was also issued under Section 636 of the Act. It is also stated that after service of notice under Section 636 of the Act, further steps were taken for removal of deviated portion and that the objectionable portions were already removed and the remaining portions which are constructed are within the approved layout sanctioned vide file No.45/open/1/B1/75, dated 15-05-1980. Form the above, it is clear that the official respondents have taken steps pursuant to the representation filed by the petitioner. The writ petition therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29-04-2009 ks