IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8931 of 2007 Between: Bejjanki Narayana S/o.B.Ramaiah R/o.H.No.1-5-463, Sircilla Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Kamareddy Municipality, Kamareddy, rep.by its Commissioner 2 The STation House officer, Kamareddy Police station Kamareddy,Nizamabad District 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, secretariat,Hyderabad 4 Kammari Narayana S/o.Narahari R/o.Open plot, Back side of 1-5-463, Sircilla road Kamareddy, Nizamabad 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1&2 to take urgent steps to consider and dispose off the representation/complaint dated 15.2.2007 filed by the petitioner and consequently declare the inaction of the 1st respondent in passing appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 15.2.2007 as being bad in law and violative of G.O.Ms.No.565 dated 4.11.2006 on the file of 4th respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 8931 of 2007 Order: The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that when the 4th respondent, without obtaining proper licence or permission from the authorities concerned, constructed sheds and foundry in the residential area and causing noise and air pollution, he made a representation dated 15.02.2007 to respondent Nos.1 and 2, but so far no action thereon had been taken. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent. In the counter affidavit it is stated that they have already taken necessary action on the application of the petitioner and got the foundry in question stopped by the 4th respondent. In view of the said statement made in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to close the writ petition by recording the same. As much as the 4th respondent has stopped the foundry in question and the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, no further orders need be passed in this writ petition and the same is accordingly closed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 27.04.2009 Nsr