IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18111 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Gaddam Uma Maheswar Rao, W/o. Rama RAo, Devarapalli, Devarapalli(V) & (M), West Godavari District. 2 Sri. Gaddam koteswar Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Grampanchayat Brahamanagudem Repd.By its Secretary (E.O.Grade II) Chegallu Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 The District Panchayat Officer West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 Sri Garapati Srihari, S/o. Krishna Rao, Brahamanagudem (V), Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:SMT.P.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel for Respondent No.4: SRI K.CHAKRAVATHY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in initiating appropriate action against respondent No.3 to prevent him from proceeding with the construction of the house, as illegal. Heard Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record. From the pleadings and the material ﬁled by the petitioners, it is evident that the neighbours on the northern side of respondent No.3 ﬁled Writ Petition No.12585 of 2008 in this Court for the same relief as claimed in this writ petition against respondent No.3. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 18.06.2008 with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider the objections raised by the petitioners therein and pass appropriate orders after giving notice to the parties including respondent No.3. Purporting to comply with the said order, respondent No.1 passed order, dated 20.06.2008 directing respondent No.3 to remove the alleged unauthorized construction and report compliance with the same within seven (7) days. Questioning the said order, respondent No.3 ﬁled Writ Petition No.16662 of 2008, which was allowed by this Court on 04.08.2008 on the ground that before passing the said order, respondent No.1 has not given a notice and opportunity of hearing to respondent No.3. This Court left respondent Nos.1 and 2 free to initiate appropriate steps. In their aﬃdavit, the petitioners, who are neighbours to respondent No.3 on another side, pleaded that on 24.06.2008, they have caused a legal notice issued to respondent No.1 to take action against respondent No.3 for proceeding with unauthorised construction. From the facts mentioned above, it is evident that even the petitioners gave notice, respondent No.1 had initiated action, which was interdicted by this Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The said writ petition ﬁled by respondent No.3 having been disposed of only a few days back, I do not ﬁnd any reason for the petitioners to approach this Court with the same relief as was sought in Writ Petition No.12585 of 2008 ﬁled by the other neighbours. In the face of the direction given in the said writ petition, I have no reason to think that respondent Nos.1 and 2 will not take action against respondent No.3 in accordance with law. By ﬁling this writ petition, the petitioners needlessly multiplied the legal proceedings. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.23567 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th AUGUST, 2008. kvni