THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22959 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the association of owners of J.D. Towers Apartments, Nagole Road, Kothapet, Hyderabad, represented by its President, P. Jangaiah. The 3rd respondent was the owner of Flat- G- 1, and the 4th respondent is the owner of Flat No.101, in the apartment. It is stated that the 3rd respondent got removed a beam in her flat, and thereby weakened the entire structure. The petitioner claims to have made a representation dated 03-08-2010 to the respondents 1 and 2, with a request to take necessary action. Stating that no steps were taken on the representation, this writ petition is filed, with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to seize Flat Nos.G-1 and 101, of the apartment. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. She states that the association as such, did not pass any resolution or take a decision, to file the writ petition. According to her, when one of the beams in her flat became weak, and plastering was falling, she has informed the office bearers of the association, and they are said to have informed her, that, being the owner of the flat, she can take the measures, to strengthen the structure. She states that, after taking the opinion of the structural engineers, she has replaced the said beam, which has developed cracks; with a steel beam, duly obtaining the consent of respondent No.4. It is stated that Mr. Jangaiah harassed her, taking advantage of the absence of her husband, and unable to bear the harassment, she has sold away the flat to one, Mr.Anand. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. There is a serious dispute, as to whether the petitioner is properly represented. Further, a representation about the replacement of beam in Flat No.G-1 was made by the Secretary, by name, Lakshmi Prabhavathi. The writ petition, however, was filed by the President. That, however, is a different aspect. The President of the Association appears to be a busybody, indulging in activities to harass the owners of the flats. There may be some justification for him in complaining about the replacement of the beam by the 3rd respondent. It is just ununderstandable as to how he impleaded the 4th respondent, who happens to be the owner of the flat, just above G-1. If at all anybody, it is the 4th respondent, that must have any grievance. The 3rd respondent had narrated the various acts and omissions on the part of Mr.Jangaiah, and the harassment caused to her. It is stated that, unable to bear the harassment, she intended to sell away the flat; and Jangaiah has gone to the extent of threatening the prospective purchaser also. He did not file any reply to the counter-affidavit. This Court takes serious exception to the attitude exhibited by the said Jangaiah. Any prudent person in his place could have suggested the alternatives for strengthening the building, instead of harassing the members, with frivolous litigation. The 3rd respondent has filed the report, submitted by the structural engineer, which is to the effect that the strength of the structure remains the same, after replacing the RCC beam, with steel girder. However, if the petitioner still feels any grievance, it shall be open to it, to pursue the matter with the Municipal Corporation, in such a way, that no member of the association, or owner of the flat, is subjected to harassment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14-02-2011. KO