IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 24222 of 2005 BETWEEN: Yeshwant Singh Solanki, S/o. Popatlal Solanki, C/o. Syed Afzal Ahmed, Advocate, Bellampally Road, Mancherial, Adilabad District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 2 The Regional Director, Town and Country Planning, Warangal, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and dispose off the representation of the petitioner, dt.31.5.2005 and 4.6.2005, by taking action for demolishing the illegal constructions in sy.No.415, Mancherial Shivar, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, which is earmarked for park by the 2nd respondent and consequently declare the in action of the respondents in taking action against illegal encroachments in Sy.No.415 of Mancherial Shivar, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District which is earmarked for park, as bad in law and violative of Judgments of Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that allowing encroachments in the and earmarked for park is illegal and bad in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents: MR.RADHA KRISHNA POLISETTY (SC FOR MPL) The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to consider his representation relating to stoppage of illegal constructions made in Sy.No.415, Mancherial Shivar, Adilabad District by the third parties whose names have been mentioned in the representations dated 31.05.2005 and 04.06.2005. 2. I am of the opinion that without impleading the necessary parties, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, while admitting the writ petition, it was observed that without making the effected parties as necessary party to the writ petition, the petitioner cannot have any relief from this Court. Even after this Court made the aforesaid observation the petitioner failed to implead the necessary parties. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 15, 2008 DSK