IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.391 of 2009 Between: R.P.Chandarana S/o.P.D.Chandarana R/o.5-8-57/D, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.VI, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Abids, Hyderabad 3 Mr.Saj Rajayya S/o.Not known to the petitioner R/o.5-8-56, Nampally , Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 or writs more appropriately a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st and 2nd respondents for not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13.7.2008 and for not taking any action against the 3rd respondent as illegal, void and ultra virus in the interest of justice and equity Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.M.QURESHI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: MR.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY (SC FOR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.391 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and at their request the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 in considering his representation dated 13.07.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has constructed the house without any set backs on the boundary wall of the petitioner, which is unauthorised and in violation of the sanctioned plan. Therefore, he made a representation to respondents 1 and 2 on 13.07.2007, but so far they have not taken any action against the third respondent. Hence, the present writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that since the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration before respondents 1 and 2, instead of this Court going into merits of the matter, respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner expeditiously, for which course of action, the learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.07.2007 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after issuing notices to the petitioner and the third respondent, expeditiously. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 20.01.2009 va/msv