IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1866 of 2001 Between: The Imlibun Residents Welfare Society, rep.by its President Shri Gopireddy Sailu, S/o.Asanna,aged-50 yrs,Occ-Mason, R/o.Jillellaguda village,Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R.Dist, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad Dist. Stn.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. R/o.3-6-184,St.No.17,Himayathnagar Hyderabad. 3 The District Manager (Housing) A.P.S.H.C Ltd., Housing Cell Hyderabad. 4 Revenue Divisional Officer, East Divn., Goshamahal Road Hyderabad .....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 the Writ of Mandamus under article 226 of Constitution of India, declaring the action of the respondents in not completing the rehabilitation project meant for the members of the petitioner's Society in Sy.No.119 of Jillellaguda village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in terms of the proceedings of Respondent no.3, work order no.HC/AE-2529/99 dt.1-4-2000 issued in terms of the administrative sanction granted by the respondent no.2 vide procs.no.3573/AE10/Engg./APUD & HC/Hyd/99 dated 7-10- 1999 and being unfair, discriminatory, arbitrary, against the policy of the State and consequently direct the Respondents to complete the constructions of houses expeditiously while completing the verification simultaneously to save money and time. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 1866 of 2001 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not completing the rehabilitation project meant for the members of the petitioner-society in Sy.No.119 of Jillellaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in terms of the work order dated 01-04-2000 issued by the third respondent is arbitrary and illegal. When the matter is taken up, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the rehabilitation project has been completed. Hence, no further enquiry is necessary in the writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar submitted that the houses constructed under the rehabilitation project are being occupied by several ineligible persons and in spite of the request made by the petitioner-society, respondents failed to take necessary steps. Since it is a subsequent development and no material is available on record to substantiate the said allegation, though I am not inclined to go into that issue, the petitioner-society is granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by working the out appropriate remedy as available under law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 11-02-2009 KLP