IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7964 of 2009 Between: 1 M/s. Concord Estates, Rep by its Managing Partner Mr. Bandaru Subba Rao, Having its Office at H.No. 8-3-191/269/4/2, Vengalranagar, Hyderabad - 38. 2 Mr. Bandaru Subba Rao, S/o. Late B.C. Nandaiah Chetty, C/o. H.No. 8-3-191/269/4/2, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad - 38. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner & Special Officer, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 Assistant City Planner, Malkajgiri, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the sanction plan and interfering with the construction of building being undertaken by the 1st petitioner under deemed provision, despite compliance of all the conditions by the 1st petitioner for construction of a residential apartment in premises admeasuring 890 sq.yards situated at bearing H.No. 42-598/3, Plot No. 3, Sy.No. 357/1, 357/3 situated at Mehdijung Colony, Moulali, Malkajgiri, R.R. District as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstituitional apart from being in contravention to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 especially sections 440 and also agains the principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondent to release the approved sanction plan of the 1st petitioner in respect of said premises. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.M.M.CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The 1st petitioner-M/s. Concord Estates is engaged in the business of real estate and building construction activities, and the 2nd petitioner is representing the 1st petitioner. It is stated that the 1st petitioner made an application dated 10.03.2008 to the 1st respondent-Corporation seeking permission for construction of a residential apartment comprising Stilt for Parking + 5 Upper Floors enclosing the proposed plan which is in total compliance of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Revised Building Regulations framed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.86. While so, the petitioners state that the 1st respondent has approved the application subject to compliance of certain conditions, and the petitioners after complying with those conditions, started making constructions under deemed provisions strictly adhering to the mandatory set backs stipulated by the 1st respondent, but it is their grievance that the respondents are not releasing the sanctioned plan and often making visits to the petitioners’ property and directing them to stop the construction stating that no permission has been accorded to them. The learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the application dated 10.03.2008 of the 1st petitioner was rejected on 19.1.2008 and suppressing this fact, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. Since the respondents are said to have considered and rejected the application dated 10.3.2008 of the 1st petitioner for grant of building construction permission on 10.1.2009, nothing survives in this writ petition for consideration, and the same is accordingly closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 28th April, 2009 bcj