THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.17443 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not preventing respondents 5 and 6 to run hotel in the premises without following the norms laid down by the Government, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondent Corporation to remove the unauthorized chimney fixed over the premises and to close down the hotel until all the norms as laid down by the Government are followed. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 5 and 6 are running a hotel under the name and style of “SARVI Restaurant and Bakery” in the ground floor of the premises owned by her. Since there is no kitchen inside the premises, respondents 5 and 6 have installed the kitchen and grilling equipment on the footpath, which is causing inconvenience to the pedestrians. Further, a chimney has been installed in the common passage, due to which, entire smoke and fumes are entering into the neighbouring premises and creating health hazards to all the occupants of the building as well the neighbours. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 5 and 6 are now trying to install a bhatti (oven) on the road for preparing Haleem and that the said bhatti emits fumes due to the burning of wood and charcoal, which may create lot of inconvenience to her and also other occupants of the premises. Hence, this writ petition. On 21.08.2009, this Court ordered Notice before admission. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments. On 14.10.2009, this Court appointed Sri P.Govinda Reddy, Advocate as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises in question and report as to whether any temporary structures are raised by respondents 5 and 6, and whether they are installing the temporary cash counters by encroaching the footpath despite the authorities of the Corporation removing them and suggest as to how the encroachments can permanently be prevented on the footpath. In pursuance of the above said order dated 14.10.2009 the Advocate Commissioner inspected the premises in question and filed a detailed report dated 14.12.2009. In the said report with regard to Point No.1 i.e., whether any temporary structures are raised by respondents 5 and 6 by encroaching the footpath, the Advocate Commissioner stated that he did not find any temporary structures raised by the hotel owner on the footpath. However, on the left side of the hotel, he found a mobile generator belonging to the hotel. Reacting to this finding, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 submitted that respondents 5 and 6 have removed the mobile generator. On Point No.2 i.e., whether respondents 5 and 6 are installing the temporary cash counters despite the authorities of the corporation removing the same, the Advocate Commissioner stated that he found that chicken counter and pan shop are well within the hotel site and they are not on the footpath and that he was constrained to say so because the petitioner did not produce the sanctioned plan to establish the allegation of projection of 2 feet on to the footpath as an encroachment by the hotel owner. On point No.3 i.e., to suggest as to how the encroachments can permanently be prevented on the footpath, he suggested that the hotel owner may be directed to install an iron grill permanently on the front side of the hotel up to a minimum height of 5 feet leaving some space for the customers to have ingress and egress into the hotel so that it would not be possible for him to bring any movable objects from inside the hotel and place them on the footpath and vice-versa. On the last occasion, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities have not removed some of the encroachments made by respondents 5 and 6 and insisted that an undertaking be taken from respondents 5 and 6 stating that they shall not obstruct or encroach the existing footpath with any permanent structures in any manner. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 has produced the compliance affidavit dated 25.02.2010 filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6. In the said affidavit, respondents 5 and 6 have stated that they have removed the mobile generator, since in the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner he stated that though he did not find any structures raised on the existing foot path area, a mobile generator was found lying on the footpath. Further, respondents 5 and 6 undertook that they will not obstruct or encroach the existing footpath with any permanent structures. The said undertaking of respondents 5 and 6 is placed on record. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition stands redressed, since the encroachments made on the footpath have already been removed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is every chance of respondents 5 and 6 again making encroachments on the footpath. If that is the case, the petitioner is not remediless. She can approach the appropriate forum seeking appropriate relief, but this Court cannot monitor the day to day encroachments. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 02.03.2010 va