HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 19901 of 2009 DATED: 17.09.2009 Between: N. Raghurama Sastry ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation 2. The Dy. Commissioner 3. Jayakar .....RESPONDENTS O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that between his house and that of the 3rd respondent, there is a common passage, and when the 3rd respondent made some illegal constructions, blocking the passage, he made representation, dated 30.6.2009 requesting the 2nd respondent, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle-3, Hyderabad, to take action against the illegal constructions. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner states that the Inspector of Buildings, working in the Office of the 2nd respondent, inspected the site and found that the 3rd respondent was making unauthorized constructions and directed him to stop the constructions. However, in spite of such directions, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent is making the constructions, and though once again he made representations to the 2nd respondent, no action thereon had been taken. Hence, he seeks appropriate directions to the official respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. According to the own admission of the petitioner, pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, the Inspector of Building, working in the Office of the 2nd respondent, visited the site, and on finding that the 3rd respondent was making illegal constructions, directed him to stop the constructions. However, despite such directions, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is proceeding with the constructions. Hence, the 2nd respondent cannot be said to have not acted on the representation made by the petitioner. However, from the facts, as pleaded in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, it appears that there are civil disputes, inasmuch as the petitioner is complaining that the 3rd respondent is making constructions blocking the passage. Whether the passage is a common passage belonging to the petitioner or the 3rd respondent, and whether the petitioner has a right to use the passage, are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner, by making official respondents as party-respondents to the writ petition, cannot seek to maintain the writ petition, particularly when the official respondents, have acted upon the representation of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for obtaining appropriate relief. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 17.09.2009 bcj