IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9384 of 2009 Between: D.V.Shiva Prasad and others. ..... PETITIONERS. AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS. ORDER: The petitioners are residents of various houses in Road No.46, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The 6th respondent owns a house on the same road. She submitted an application to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to permit her to construct a house on the plot. Permission was accorded on 19.11.2007 enabling her to construct ground and two upper floors for residential purpose. The 7th respondent intended to establish a School in the locality and appears to have negotiated with the 6th respondent to lease the premises. It also submitted an application seeking permission to run a School and in anticipation of that, an advertisement was issued inviting applications. Apprehending that the 7th respondent would establish a School in the residential locality without permission, the petitioners approached this Court. The petitioners contend that road No.46 is purely residential locality and the permission was accorded to the 6th respondent only to construct a residential house. According to them, the premises cannot be put to any other use. They also point out that in case a School is established, it will lead to traffic and other problems. The 7th respondent filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that an application was filed before the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, and that inspection was also conducted by the competent authority. It is stated that even while they were awaiting necessary permissions, the present writ petition is filed and citing the pendency of the writ petitions, the authorities are not taking steps. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, learned Government Pleader for Education and Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel for respondent No.5. The petitioners complain that the 7th respondent is proposing to establish a School in the residential locality. Their objection is referable to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. It is, no doubt, true that the 6th respondent was accorded permission from the 4th respondent to construct a residential house. At the same time, it can certainly be decided by the 4th respondent itself whenever a proposal is made in that regard. Admittedly, respondents 6 and 7 have not obtained any permission so far, as regards the use of the building. The 7th respondent is very much aware of the fact that a School can be established only on the strength of the permission issued by the third respondent- the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad. In all fairness, the learned senior counsel submitted that the School would be established only after necessary permission is accorded. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that: (a) the 7th respondent shall be entitled to establish a School only on the strength of the permissions that are required to be accorded by the authorities concerned, including the third respondent; (b) it shall be open to the petitioners to raise their objections in relation to the grant of permission to run a school in the residential locality; (c) The objections raised by the petitioners shall be taken into account before any permission is accorded to respondents 6 and 7. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:05.12.2009 sj