IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.22777 of 2006 Between: Pandugayala Sanjevaiah. … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt.Srilatha for Sri G.V.L.N.Murty. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for R.1. Smt.Beena for S.Nageswara Reddy for R.2. Sri M.Sreedhar for Sri N.Satyanarayana for R.3. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22777 OF 2006 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not taking action against the petitioner’s representations dated 21-9-2006 and 4-10-2006 for removal of illegal construction made by respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Smt.Srilata, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt.Beena, learned counsel representing Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2; and Sri M.Sudheer learned counsel representing Sri Nimmagedda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The only grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 encroached a part of public street and raised constructions, and that though the petitioner made representations to respondent No.2 (Chirala Municipality), no action has been taken thereon. The fact that respondent No.3 encroached into a part of public street, which was termed as ‘spring site’, to the extent of 4.5 feet to 6.5 feet depth of spring site and erected a napa-stone platform and compound walls is admitted by respondent No.2 in his counter-affidavit.. It is also averred that the petitioner himself encroached the said passage of spring site by constructing a lavatory and compound wall over an extent of 78 square feet and that notices were issued to the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, but they have not so far responded to the same. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is stated that on receipt of notice dated 27-10-2006 issued by respondent No.2, she filed O.S.No.392 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala and persuaded the said Court to grant an order of status quo on 23-11-20006 in I.A.No.2918 of 2006. The allegation that the petitioner has also encroached into the public street is not controverted by the petitioner. Being himself guilty of encroaching the public street, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the part of respondent No.2, it does not appear that it has taken any action either against the petitioner or respondent No.3, except giving notices. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to contest the civil suit filed by respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 is directed to initiate action against respondent No.3 and also the petitioner, if it is fond that he also encroached into the public street, subject to the orders of the civil Court in O.S.no.392 of 2006. Respondent No.2 shall take appropriate steps to get the order passed in the said civil suit varied or vacated to enable him to take appropriate action. -- ---------------------------- -------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 15-2-2008 MNR