IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22247 of 2008 Between: Mallela Seshamma, W/o. M. Pedda Subba Reddy, R/o. D.No. 3/1041, YMR Colony, Proddatur, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Proddatur Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Proddatur, Kadapa District. 2 Bhoomi Reddy Raghava Reddy, S/o. B. Bali Reddy, R/o. D.No. 3/142, Lingareddy Bazar, Proddatur, Kadapa District. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any action against the illegal construction of the 2nd respondent in the premises bearing door NO. 3/1042, 1043 at YMR Colony, Proddatur, Kadapa District, even though the 2nd respondent in making illegal construction by encroaching the 3 feet public road, without leaving the setbacks as required under law apart from other violations as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent Municipality to stop the illegal construction of the 2nd respondent in the aforesaid premises. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : ORDER: The first respondent accorded permission to the second respondent on 03.10.2007, for construction of stilt + ground + three floors in the premises, bearing Door Nos. 3/1042 and 1043 at YMR Colony, Proddatur, Kadapa District. The petitioner is the tenant in the neighbouring premises. Her grievance is that the second respondent has constructed the building in total deviation of sanctioned plan; be it as to number of floors or the set backs. This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to declare the inaction on the part of the first respondent to proceed against the second respondent, as illegal and unconstitutional. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counter-affidavits. The first respondent stated that the second respondent deviated from set backs and that one floor was constructed without any permission. The second respondent, on the other hand, states that he has already submitted an application to avail the benefit under the Regulation and Penalisation Rules (for short ‘the Rules’), framed in G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007. Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel for the second respondent. A serious doubt is expressed as to the very locus standi of the petitioner, on the ground that she is only a tenant and even proceedings were initiated against her husband for eviction. This Court would certainly have required the first respondent to take action for demolition of any portion of the construction made in deviation of the sanctioned plan, however, the Government issued the Rules providing for regularization of structures that are made within the limits of municipalities and municipal corporations in the State between 01.01.1985 and 15.12.2007. The second respondent has already submitted an application by paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The question as to whether the second respondent is entitled for regularization of the structures that are already made would depend on the out come of the application made by him. It is represented that only internal finishing works are in progress and no further construction would be made. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the first respondent shall take into account the provisions of the Rules, while dealing with the application of the second respondent for regularization. The second respondent shall not be entitled to add any new construction, till the application is disposed of. The internal finishing works, however, may go on, which shall be subject to the out come of the application. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:12.12.2008 GJ