IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10423 of 2008 Between: S. Ramulamma w/o Sri S. Yadagiri R/o 1-11-110/92/2/1 Shyamlal Building, Tatachari Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corportion, rep by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad Zone Secunderabad 3 The City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad. 4 M. Yadaiah S/o Narasimha R/o 16-1-427/36 Ekalavyanagar, Saidabad, 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 an appropriate Writ, orderor Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dt 29-3-2008 and 3-4-2008 respectively and consequentially directthe respondents 1 & 3 to take action against the 4th respondent for his illegal, activity upon 40 feet Public road in Tatachari Colony, Begumpet, hyderabad-16 in accordance with law, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.DEVINENI RADHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 10423 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by S.Ramulamma with a prayer to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in not considering the representations of the petitioner, dated 29-3-2008 and 3- 4-2008 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that necessary action has been taken basing on the complaint of the petitioner and therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition. He further states that as and when any further complaints are filed by the petitioner the respondents would consider the same in accordance with the provisions of law. 3. Recording the said submission, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 1st July, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 10423 OF 2008 1st July, 2008.