HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5784 of 2010 29th March 2010 Between: Dwarapudi Venkata Reddy … PETITIONER(S) and State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5784 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, Learned counsel for the petitioner, the Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam. At their request the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The permission, for construction of a building, granted in favour of the 5th respondent in respect of the property admeasuring an extent of 987 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.2, Plot No.1A, 1-A, I-C (Part), Patta No.19, Allipuram Extention, Ward K-group, now called as Balayya Sastri lay out, Visakhapatnam, is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that, though several disputes were pending adjudication in different fora between the petitioner and the 5th respondent, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation had granted permission. Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, Learned counsel for the petitiner, would submit that, in the light of the decisions of this Court in T.RAMESHWAR vs. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD[1] and C.VENKAT RAMI REDDY AND OTHERS vs. VICE-CHAIRMAN, HUDA, HYD.[2], the petitioner would make a representation to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation requesting them to consider canceling/keeping in abeyance the permission granted earlier for construction of a building; and it would suffice if this Court were to direct the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, would submit that the Corporation had no objection to consider the representation of the petitioner and that they would put the 5th respondent on notice, give both parties an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In view of the petitioner’s request that he may be permitted to file such a representation, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. Leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the said representation, if it is filed within a period of two weeks from today and, after putting all the affected parties on notice, pass an order in accordance with law. No costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 29th March 2010 Note: Issue copy within one week. B/o CVRK/ASP [1] 2006 (3) ALD 337 [2] 2006 (6) ALD 411