THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1833 of 2008 Date: 05.02.2008 Between: J.V.Ramapathi Rao and others … Petitioners AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1833 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice, be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction; more particularly, one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the applications of the petitioners either submitted or to be submitted for grant of building permission in respect of their respective plots, situated in Survey No.44/1 of Miyapur Village, Serlingampally Mandal, R.R. District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and further direct the 1st respondent to consider the applications of the petitioners for grant of building permission.” At the hearing, it is conceded by Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by order, dated 16.11.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12861 of 2007. In view of the same, this writ petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said order. At the hearing, Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation raised an objection that except petitioner Nos.1 to 12, other petitioners have not made their applications and, therefore, the relief granted by this Court in Writ Petition No.12861 of 2007 may not be granted in their favour. Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that since the respondents were not entertaining the applications for approving building plans, petitioner Nos.13 to 62 did not file their applications. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that as petitioner Nos.1 to 12 have already filed their applications, which are with respondent No.1 or have been returned, as the case may be, they are entitled to the directions as contained in order, dated 16.11.2007 in Writ Petition No.12861 of 2007. With regard to the rest of the petitioners, they are permitted to make their applications and in the event, respondent No.1 does not consider the same, they are at liberty to seek appropriate orders from this Court. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.2287 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 5th FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni