IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 2548 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Ghousuddin S/o Mohd.Sharifuddin Late, R/o. 17-6-545 & 546, Behind P.S.Dabirpura, Dabirpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 2 Aijaz , aged 40 years, R/o. 17-6-588/1, Bagh-e-Lashker Jung, Hyderabad. 3 The Station House Officer, P.S.Dabirpura, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the representation dated 23.1.2009 according to law is illegal, arbitrary, violative of ARt.21 of Constitution of India and direct the1st respondent to demolish the illegal structures at the premises bearing no.17-6-540/A, Behind P.S.Dabirpura, Dabirpura, Hyderabad and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take action against the respondent no.2 for raising illegal structures over the house bearing No.17-6-540/a, Behind P.S. Dabirpura, Dabirpura, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.A.MUJEEB Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2548 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the petitioner’s representation, dated 23.01.2009, according to law, as illegal and arbitrary, and direct the 1st respondent to demolish the illegal constructions at the premises bearing No.17-6-540/A behind P.S.Dabirpura, Dabirpura, Hyderabad, and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take action against respondent No.2 for raising illegal constructions over the said premises. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing No.17-6-545 & 546 situated at Bagh- e-Lashker Jung, behind P.S.Dabirpura, Hyderabad, and respondent No.2 is his neighbour, who has taken up constructions over the premises bearing No.17-6-540/A situated at Bagh-e-Lashkker Jung, behind Dabirpura P.S., Hyderabad. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2, apart from taking up constructions without obtaining any valid permission and sanction plan from the statutory authority of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, has taken up constructions without leaving the required set-backs and without following the zoning regulations. The further grievance of the petitioner is that he approached respondent No.3-Station House Officer, P.S.Dabirpura, Hyderabad, requesting to stop the illegal constructions of respondent No.2 and also he submitted a representation to respondent No.1 on 23.01.2009 to stop the illegal constructions and to demolish the illegal structures raised by respondent No.2, but neither respondent No.3 has taken any action nor respondent No.1 is acting thereupon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 3rd respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent, namely the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is directed to consider the representation, dated 23.01.2009, of the petitioner, after issuing notice to the 2nd respondent pointing out the illegal constructions said to have been made by him, and after considering any reply to be submitted by the 2nd respondent to such notice, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible.” The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 12.02.2009 v v