IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26083 of 2008 Between: Smt. N. Varamma, W/o. Narahari, R/o. Ravinder Nagar, Nalgonda ..... PETITIONER AND Nalgonda Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Nalgonda - 508 001. .....RESPONDENT 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 order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Provisional Order bearing UC No. 02 dated 21-11-2008 issued by the respondent under Section 228(1) of Municipalities Act as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of right guaranteed under Section 223 of the A.P. Municipalities Act apart from gross violation of right guaranteed under Art 300A of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the Provisional Order dated 21.11.2008 issued by the respondent- Municipality under Section 228(1) of the Municipalities Act, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently set aside the same. The petitioner asserts that she purchased a plot in an extent of 281.60 square yards of land situated at Meerbagh, Ward No.6, Block No.4, Nalgonda from one Sujatha under a registered sale deed dated 24.8.1979. Thereafter, she made an application, dated 16.8.2008 to the respondent-Municipality seeking permission for construction of a building in the plot, and the Town Plan Supervisor of the Respondent- Municipality inspected the site. But, as the petitioner has not received any communication from the respondent with regard to the permission, she commenced construction of her house in accordance with the site plan. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent issued Provisional Order dated 21.11.2008 directing her to stop the construction work in the plot. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for Municipality. The Provisional Order issued by the Commissioner, Nalgonda Municipality clearly indicates that the petitioner is executing the work in the plot in question without obtaining the required permission from the Commissioner. Once such a Provisional Order is passed by the Commissioner, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the same authority and offer her explanation. In fact, the petitioner approached the authority and made her representation dated 24.11.2008, but without waiting till the disposal of her representation, she has filed this writ petition in a hurry. The learned standing counsel for the respondent-Municipality has submitted that the authority will consider her representation and pass appropriate orders thereon. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-Municipality, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is premature and I see no merits in it. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed, however the Commissioner, Nalgonda Municipality shall dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 24.11.2008 within a period of ten days from today. Pending consideration of the representation, the respondent- Municipality shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. No costs. ______________ 28.11.2008 Note: Furnish copy in two days B/o bcj