HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W. P. NO. 13786 of 2009 FRIDAY THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 Between: Nimmagadda Satyamatha .. Petitioner And The Director of Town and Country Planning And two others .. Respondents O R D E R: The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though he made a representation dated 25.06.2009 to the 2nd respondent- Commissioner requesting him to take immediate steps to stop the unauthorized construction of 5th floor over the existing Vaishnavi Apartment, Jayakrishnapuram, Rajahmundry at D.Nos.25-7-10 and 25-7-11 being made by the 3rd respondent, in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, and the Rules made thereunder and the A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987, he has neither considered and passed appropriate orders on her representation nor took steps to prevent the 3rd respondent from proceeding with the illegal constructions. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. When the matter came up on 14.07.2009, the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, produced a Notice dated 29.06.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent-builder under Sections 452 and 461 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) calling for his explanation to show cause as to why the illegal constructions being made by him in deviation of the sanctioned plan shall not be demolished, and the Notice was received by him on 14.07.2009, and on instructions, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the official respondents have already initiated steps for removal of the unauthorized constructions made by the 3rd respondent. In view of the specific stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel that steps have already been initiated by respondent- Corporation against the 3rd respondent for removal of the illegal constructions made by him, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. However, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that after the writ petition was filed, the 3rd respondent-builder erected some structures obstructing the common passage. If that be so, the respondent-Corporation is at liberty to look into the matter and take appropriate action. It is further submitted that if the builder poses any threat of dire consequence by sending anti- social elements to the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to lodge a complaint against the 3rd respondent to the police. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J 7th August, 2009 SKM