IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT APPEAL NO : 210 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/02/2008 in WP NO : 25800 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. Chidurala Rani W/o. Sri Chidurala Ravinder Reddy Waddepally, Hanamakonda Warangal District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Sri Gutam Raji Reddy S/o. Sri G. Malla Reddy R/o. Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 2 The Municipal Corporation of Warangal, rep.by its Commissioner, Warangal, Warangal District 3 The City Planner, O/o. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.DURGA NAGESWARA RAO MR. M. PAPA REDDY, The Court made the following : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA W.A.NO. 210 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, HCJ) In this appeal, an interim order passed by learned single Judge in WPMP No. 33097 of 2006, dt. 22.2.2008 has been challenged. By virtue of the impugned order, practically the petition filed by the present respondent No.1-writ petitioner has been allowed, because the learned single Judge has given a direction to the original respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the construction put up by the present appellant and compliance of the same order is to be reported by the original respondents 1 and 2 on 7.3.2008. By virtue of the said order, the property of the present appellant would be demolished and in that event the petition filed by the present respondent No.1-writ petitioner would be allowed. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties, it appears that the counter filed by the present appellant was not considered by the learned single Judge as we do not find any reference to the averments pertaining to the counter in the impugned order. In the circumstances, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that he would like to file a vacate stay petition before the learned single Judge so that the impugned order can be vacated or modified. If such an application is filed, we are sure that the learned single Judge would consider the same after hearing all other concerned advocates. The vacate stay petition shall be filed within one week from today and till 7th March, 2008 the implementation of the impugned order shall be stayed. In view of the above direction, the writ appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ________________ ANIL R. DAVE CJ _____​______________________ GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA J Dt.27.2.2008 NB: CC of judgment be furnished by tomorrow. /BO/ KR ........REGISTRAR To 1. The Municipal Corporation of Warangal, rep.by its Commissioner, Warangal, Warangal District 2 The City Planner, O/o. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Warangal, Warangal District. 3. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VSMI}