The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.2507 of 2010 Order: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks declaration, by way of Mandamus, that the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in not taking any action against the illegal constructions made by respondent No.3 at premises bearing Nos.22-3- 356 & 357, Magar Ki Bowli, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad, contrary to the sanctioned plan and pursuant to the notices under Sections 452 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), issued by them vide Order No.356/ACP/C4/GHMC/2009, dated 04-11-2009 and 22-12-2009, is illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner of premises bearing No.22-3-355, which is situated adjacent to the abovesaid premises belonging to the third respondent. It is his grievance that the third respondent, having obtained permission for construction of ground and first floor in premises bearing No.22-3-356, has been proceeding with the construction contrary to the sanctioned plan and no steps are being taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for removal of such illegal constructions. Even according to the petitioner, respondents Nos.1 and 2 have already issued notices as contemplated under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act to respondent No.3 directing to remove the deviations carried out by her in the premises bearing Nos.22-3-356 & 357. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to issuance of such notices, respondent No.3 has filed O.S.No.5512 of 2009 on the file of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, suppressing the factum of receipt of such notices and obtained interim injunction order vide I.A.No.553 of 2009, dated 24-12-2009. In view of issuance of notices under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act to respondent No.3, it cannot be said that no action has been taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, further steps were not taken by them in view of the interim injunction order passed by the competent civil Court. If respondent No.3 has filed O.S.No.5512 of 2009 by suppressing any facts, the petitioner, if aggrieved, can seek impleadment as party-defendant in the said suit and bring such facts to the notice of the Court. Leaving open to the petitioner, to implead himself as party-defendant in O.S.No.5512 of 2009, pending on the file of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and, to seek vacation of the interim injunction order granted therein, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Date: 9th February, 2010 lur