THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3301 OF 2003 Dated 26th November, 2009 Between: G.Ksheerasagaram …Petitioner And Government of A.P. rep. By its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ghanta Ramakrishna for Sri V.Hari Haran Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: G.P for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri S.Nageswara Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4 : Smt Bobba Vijayalakshni The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare grant of permission by the Kovvur Municipality for construction of a commercial building by respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a resident of Bapujinagar Colony, which was formed by the Kovvur Cooperative House Building Society Limited in the year 1948. The colony was constructed under an approved layout bearing LP No.94/98. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the plot purchased by respondent No.4, a Cooperative Urban Bank, it was permitted to construct a building for carrying on banking activities by the Kovvur Municipality. According to the petitioner, as the plot is situated in a residential colony, as per the approved layout respondent No.4 cannot be permitted to construct a building for using the same for a commercial purpose. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 2 and 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it has been, inter alia, stated that the Municipal Council, Kovvur, vide its resolution No.216 dated 28.11.2002, resolved to send the proposals for permission to construct Cooperative Urban Bank in Plot No.C 89 and that as the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Rajahmundry was the competent authority for granting such permission, as the size of the plot was 504 square meters, the said authority accorded permission for construction of the building for running the Urban Cooperative Bank vide its proceedings dated 28.12.2002. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, similar averments have been made. At the hearing, Sri G.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the plot, on which the building for running a Bank was under construction, is located in a residential area, respondents 2 and 3 have no authority to permit such activity. The submission of the learned counsel is wholly without any merit, because the Zoning Regulations made under the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920, a copy of which has been placed before this Court, by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, provide for use of the plots situated in residential zone for certain specified non- residential purposes with the permission of the competent authority. Schedule-II dealing with the ‘Residential Use Zone’ of the Zoning Regulations to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “Uses permissible on appeal to the competent authority (Through Municipal Council): Retail shops, local banks with safe deposits vaults, petrol filling station without servicing facilities, flour mills up to 10 HPEM, oil rotary up to 5 HPEM, Municipal, State and Central Government uses, Hostels, according to standards specified and measured in term of the population they are to serve. Cemeteries, multipurpose or junior technical schools not giving rise to smoke noise or other nuisance, auditoria, public assembly halls, sport stadiums, tansient visitors camp, taxi and scooter stand, parking lots, bus terminus, public utility buildings, hospitals not treating contagious diseases or mental patients, museums, holiday homes, farm houses, dharmasalas, kalyana mandapams, electronic industry of assembling type, storage and sale of kerosene not exceeding 1000 liters in approved ration shops and cooking gas cylinder godowns with prior permission of Director of Explosives. Coffee grinding machines with 1 HPEM, printing press up to 10 HPEM not employing more than nine persons and fruit, vegetable, meat and fish markets, professional establishments not occupying more than 20 Sq.M of floor area.” In paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition itself, the petitioner has admitted that respondent No.2 has issued permission on 28.12.2002 in favour of respondent No.4 for construction of a building for commercial purpose. The petitioner failed to urge any legally sustainable plea to invalidate the said proceeding. As respondent No.2 is vested with the power to permit the land situated in the residential area to be used for the non- commercial purpose such as running a Bank, which obviously tends to the convenience of the residents of the area, I do not find any reason, whatsoever, to grant relief in favour of the petitioner, which will have the effect of invalidating the permission granted by respondent No.2. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 26th November, 2009 vrn