IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 9740 of 2008 Between: P. Mahender, s/o. P. Narsaiah, R/o. H.No. 10-4-13/11/A/1A1, Humayunagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1) The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its, The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2) The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its, The Asst. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle IV, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3) M. Venkateswarlu, s/o. Venkaiah, R/o. H.No. 13-6-433/26, Netajinagar, Lunger Houz, 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 will be pleased to issue an order or writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to see that the illegal construction by the 3rd respondent bearing H.No. 13- 6-433/26, Plot No. 26, Netajinagar, Hyderabad be demolished. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.V.RAJEEVAN Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: MR.R. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. This is a public interest litigation wherein it has been submitted that respondent No.3 has put up illegal construction and, therefore, a prayer has been made to the effect that respondent Nos.1 and 2 be directed to demolish the illegal construction. 2. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 has submitted that the construction put up by respondent No.3 is not illegal and that an application for regularization of the construction has already been made to the concerned respondents. 3. Looking to the facts of the case, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the contents of the petition as well as the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and within six weeks from today, after considering the legal position, take the decision whether the construction put up by respondent No.3 can be regularized, if it is not in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. The decision so taken by respondent No.1 shall be communicated to the petitioner as well as respondent No.3. 4. In view of the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ June 18, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note: Issue C.C. by 22.6.2009. (By order) svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}