IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4367 of 2009 Between: 1 K. Lakshmi W/o. Late E.S. Chary R/o. H.No.1-9-6286, Adikmet, Hyderabad-500 044. 2 E.S. Rajeev, S/o. Late E.S. Chary R/o. H.No.1-9-6286, Adikmet, Hyderabad-500 044. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner and Special Officer, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Allotment Committee, rep. by its Chairman and Additional Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 The Bagh Amberpet Welfare Society, rep. by its President bearing Registration No.599/1981, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013 .....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 writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting the plot MIG.II underHUDCO Scheme 1974 at Bathkammakunta, Bagh Amberpet in pursuance of Notification dt. 8.4.1974 and not considering the representation of the petitioner dt. 17.10.2003 & 20.03.2004 and proceeding to allot the plot to others as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently call for the records and direct the respondents to allot the plot to the 2nd petitioner (his son) in Bathkamakunta under MIG-II Scheme. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the action of the respondents in not allotting a plot-MIG-II under HUDCO Scheme, 1974 at Bathakamakunta, Bagh Amberpet in favour of the 2nd petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 8.4.1974 and not considering the representations dated 17.10.2003 and 20.3.2004 and proceeding to allot the plots to others. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is not res integra and this Court in W.P.No.19082 of 2008 vide judgment dated 9.4.2008 had already considered the issue and disposed of the writ petition directing respondents 2 and 4 therein to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and till such time, one plot under MIG category shall be kept reserved for being allotted to the petitioner in the event of her finding eligible after due enquiry on her representations. The said fact has not been denied by the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation. In the circumstances, following the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.19082 of 2008 dated 8.4.2008, this writ petition is also disposed of directing respondents 2 and 4 to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 17.10.2003 and 20.3.2004 and pass appropriate orders and till such time, one plot under MIG category shall be kept reserved for being allotted to the 2nd petitioner in the event of his finding eligible after due enquiry on the representations. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.18.3.2009 msv