HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19938 OF 2008 Date: 12th July 2010 Between: Safdaria Girls High School, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent. … Petitioner And Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19938 OF 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.1 in taking steps to regularise the illegal constructions being carried on by the 2nd respondent in the premises bearing No.10-3-73, situated at Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, as illegal and in violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.23752 of 2007, dated 12.06.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that he is running a school in the premises bearing No.10-3-72 in the name and style of ‘Safdaria Girls High School’ at Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. It is the grievance of the petitioner that adjoining the said premises, the 2nd respondent, who owns the premises bearing No.10-3-73, having obtained approved plan for construction of ground + 3 upper floors, has made illegal constructions by constructing two floors unauthorisedly. On the ground that no action has been taken inspite of his representation, he earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.23752 of 2007. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an order, dated 12th June 2008, directing the 1st respondent-Corporation to take necessary steps for removal of unauthorised constructions, if any, made by the 2nd respondent in the premises bearing No.10-3-73, situated at Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has approached the 1st respondent-Corporation for regularisation of constructions made by her, and the 1st respondent is considering such request, in violation of the orders, dated 12th June 2008, passed by this Court in W.P.No.23752 of 2007. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the 1st respondent- Corporation, that the application filed by the 2nd respondent under Building Regularisation Scheme, is still pending consideration in File No.0691/BPS/C7/CZ/ 2008. It is further submitted that if there are any objections of the petitioner, such objections can be raised before the 1st respondent-competent authority and the same will be looked into while considering the application filed by the 2nd respondent for regularisation. The Government has notified the regularisation scheme in terms of the provision under Section 455-A of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Such scheme, when came to be questioned before this Court, a Division Bench of this Court has already upheld the same. In that view of the matter, whether the constructions, which are stated to be unauthorised, can be regularised or not, and whether the said constructions are as per the conditions notified in the scheme or not, are the matters, which are to be considered by the competent authority. Even before such application is considered, on mere apprehension, the petitioner has approached this Court. Though it is the case of the petitioner that consideration of 2nd respondent’s application for regularisation is in violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.23752 of 2007, but such contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted, for the reason that in the aforesaid writ petition, directions were issued for taking steps for removal of unauthorised constructions, if any, made by the 2nd respondent. As much as a regularisation scheme is notified by way of amendments made to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, it is always open for the 1st respondent-Authority to consider the application made by the 2nd respondent for regularisation of the constructions made by her and examine whether such constructions are authorised and can be regularised or not, which cannot be said to be in contravention of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.23752 of 2007. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- Municipal Corporation that the application of 2nd respondent is still under consideration and if the petitioner is of the view that any constructions are not to be regularised even according to the regularisation scheme, it is for the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the competent authority. If such objections are filed, the same will be considered while considering the application of the 2nd respondent for regularisation. For the reasons stated above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to file his objections to the proposed regularisation, within a period of three weeks from today, with a further direction to the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation to consider the regularisation application filed by the 2nd respondent, which is pending in File No.0691/BPS/C7/CZ/2008, and pass appropriate orders, by taking into consideration the objections to be filed by the petitioner. It is also made clear that if no objections are filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid time, it is open for the 1st respondent to consider the application of the 2nd respondent in accordance with the scheme in force. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th July 2010 ajr