The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.28210 of 2011 Date: 18.10.2011 Between: Mohd.Nafeesuddin ..... Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, (GHMC) rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.L.K.Sharma Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr.Santosh Kumar for Mr.C.Damodar Reddy, SC for GHMC Counsel for respondent No.3: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in proceeding against respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to demolish the illegal and unauthorised commercial construction made in the residential premises bearing Municipal No.1-2-393 (old No.390 to 394), admeasuring 65 square yards, situated at Gagan Mahal, Domalguda, Hyderabad. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner has averred that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 leading to institution of certain civil cases wherein a compromise decree is stated to have been passed; that contrary to the said decree, respondent No.3 has been raising construction in the above mentioned premises; that the petitioner has filed OS.No.2059 of 2010 in the Court of the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against respondent No.3 and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, in respect of the alleged illegal construction and; that the said suit is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that having issued notice under Section 685 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not taking further action. On the petitioner’s own showing, he has already availed a remedy by way of filing a civil suit against the respondents herein and the same is pending. The petitioner cannot be permitted to avail parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter and cause of action. Even if respondent No.3 has raised further construction after filing civil suit, it is permissible for the petitioner to seek appropriate amendment in the pending suit and claim relief in respect thereof. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to entertain this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the pending civil suit. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.34828 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 18th October, 2011 lur