IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19801 OF 2009 Dt.30.11.2009 Between: Kola Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And The Chair-person, Parvathipuram Municipality, Parvathipuram Vizianagaram District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.S.S. Prasad Counsel for the Respondents 1, 3 and 4: Mrs. P. Beena for Sri S. Nageswara Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. for Municipal Administration & Urban Development THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19801 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) This is a public interest litigation, which has been initiated by a Councillor of Parvathipuram Municipality, wherein it has been submitted that the construction,which is being put up for a shopping center, is not in the interest of the society. Our attention has been drawn to the building plans and photographs of the building, which is being constructed. It is the case of the petitioner that though the construction is being put up as per the sanctioned plan, sanction should not have been accorded by respondent No.2 because by virtue of the said sanction, there would be certain doors on a particular side of the shopping center and that would hinder traffic or public at large. It is not in dispute that the construction of shopping center is as per the sanctioned plan. The petitioner is one of the Councillors of the Municipality, which is responsible for sanction of the plan. In view of the above fact, looking to the sketches and photographs of the shopping center placed along with the material papers, we are of the view that the construction put up as per the sanctioned plan can never be said to be illegal or against public policy. We are sure that respondent No.2 must have given sanction after considering all relevant Rules and Regulations pertaining to Building Byelaws. In the circumstances, this Court would not like to interfere with the construction in question, which has been put up. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected with no order as to costs. As a sequel to rejection of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.25817 of 2009,filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is also rejected. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30.11.2009 bnr