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 : 21525 of 2007 Between: U. Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Venkateswar Rao, R/o. 7-1-396/B/5, B.K. Guda, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 Sattiah, S/o.Not Known to the Petitioner, R/o. H.No. 7-1-396/B/97/1, B.K. Guda, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. Yashoda, W/o.Not Known to the Petitioner, R/o. H.No. 7-1-396/B/97/1, B.K. Guda, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. 4 Yadaiah, S/o.Not Known to the Petitioner, R/o. H.No. 7-1-396/B/97/1, B.K. Guda, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. .....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 direct the 1st respondent take action against the respondents 2 to 4 for illegal and unauthorized construction in premises No. 7-1-396/B/97/1, situated at B.K. Guda, S.R.Nagar, Hdyerabad by issuing an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for Respondent No.1: 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 petitioner has questioned the action on the part of the 1st respondent in not taking action for removal of illegal and unauthorized construction undertaken by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the premises bearing door No. 7-1-396/B/97/1, situated at B.K. Guda, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle No. V of the respondent – Corporation, it is stated that on receipt of the complaint of the petitioner, the authorities have visited the premises and issued notice to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as contemplated under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 03-10-2007. It is also stated that subsequently the unauthorized structures i.e., the columns which were erected were removed on 11-10-2007 departmentally. In view of the steps taken by the respondent – Corporation as stated in the counter affidavit, it cannot be said that no action has been taken on the complaint made by the petitioner. Recording the statement of the 1st respondent with regard to the removal of unauthorized constructions on 11-10-2007, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29-04-2009 ks