THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15783 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner complains that though respondent No.3 has constructed mulgies at the threshold of road No.12, Banjara Hills without any permission and in the place earmarked as open space, respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any steps. He has also filed a copy of letter, dated 13.04.2007, through which, the Assistant City Planner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, stated that the construction made in the premises bearing No.8-2-644/1 by the third respondent is unauthorized and without permission. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions in this regard. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit stating that the construction made by respondent No.3 is illegal and unauthorized and further steps could not be taken on account of the pendency of an application filed by respondent No.3 as well as the suits instituted before different Courts. Respondent No.3 has also filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 does not deny the allegation that the construction was made without permission. But, for the fact that the Government has introduced the Building Penalisation Scheme and an application was filed by respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 and 2 would have swung into action and taken necessary steps as provided for under the Municipal Corporation Act. It is a different matter as to whether the application filed by respondent No.3 is tenable at all. Once the application is pending, further steps cannot be expected from respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that, a) Respondent No.1 shall examine and dispose of the application submitted by respondent No.3 for regularization of the construction made by her in premises bearing No.8-2- 644/1, within four (4) weeks from today, b) it shall be open to the petitioner to submit his representation/objections for the regularization, and it shall be taken into account by respondent No.1, c) in case it emerges that the construction made by respondent No.3 cannot be regularized, further steps shall be taken forthwith notwithstanding the pendency of the proceedings in any forum. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 5th NOVEMBER, 2009. kvni