IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14666 of 2008 Between: Perumalla Venkata Subramanyam S/o. Omkaram ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Markapur Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner Markapur, Prakasam District. 2 Modala Prabhavathamma W/o. Mallikarjuna Rao, R/o. Ardhaveedu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. .....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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the 1st Respondent herein in not taking any action on the Complaint made by me in respect of illegal, construction in New Door No. 8-125 Old No. 6-10 situated in Markapur Town as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Provisions of Municipalities Act and consequently direct the respondents to take necessary action to stop the illegal construction forthwith and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14666 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Perumalla Venkata Subramanyam assailing the inaction of the 1st Respondent in considering the representation with regard to the illegal construction made by Modala Prabhavathamma-2nd respondent in respect of the house bearing NO. 8- 125 Old No. 6-10, situated in Markapur town, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Municipalities Act. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 2nd Respondent is proceedings with the constructions and his construction obstructs the road. He submitted a representation to the 1st Respondent on 19-5- 2008. There being no action on the part of the 1st respondent on the representation, the petitioner choose to approach this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 4. Since the grievance of the petitioner is that his representation complaining unauthorized construction by the 2nd Respondent is not attended by the 1st respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19-5-2008 after putting on notice to the affected parties and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy, 9th July, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14666 OF 2008 9th July, 2008.