HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.1735 of 2010 15th March 2010 Between: K.Venkata Vijaya Kumari … PETITIONER(S) and The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.1735 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner purchased flat No.TF-I(III Floor), Vyshnavi Towers, D.No.23-33-12, opposite to Amali High School, Gutlurivari Street, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada, from Smt. K. Varalakshmi under a registered sale deed dated 21.2.2003. She filed an application under BPS scheme for regularization of her flat on 21.5.2008 and claims to have paid Rs.6000/- initially and subsequently Rs.6000/- Alleging that the respondents were requiring her to pay a far higher amount than was permissible under the Scheme, the petitioner claims to have approached the City Planner who is said to have informed her that a complaint had been received from her neighbour that she had put a grill; and the demand notice would be issued for the rest of the amount under regularization scheme only after she removed the said grill. The respondent issued a notice dated 10.12.2009 calling upon the petitioner to remove the grill door fixed in front of her portion within seven days. The petitioner would submit that there were thefts in Vijayawada which necessitated a grill being laid; she had filed O.S.1370 of 2007 against her neighbour and had obtained an injunction against him on 20.12.2007; in order to avoid thefts she is entitled to put up grill door; and her application, under the BPS scheme, should be considered for regularization without imposing any condition that she remove the grill door. A perusal of the endorsement issued by the respondent dated 10.12.2009 would reveal that the petitioner had fixed a grill door and had occupied the common passage thereby obstructing the rights of other flat owners over the common passage. The petitioner was called upon to remove the grill door fixed across the common corridor and inform the same to the office of the Commissioner to enable them to consider her request, under the BPS scheme, for regularization of the deviations in construction of her flat. Sri P.N.Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would rely on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.6874/09 dated 24.4.2009 wherein this Court noted that the petitioner therein and her brother owned neighbouring flats; a perusal of the plan disclosed that the corridor or open space between flat Nos.G-2 and G-3 was for the exclusive benefit of owners of those two flats; it was only with a view to provide security to their flats that the petitioner and her brother had put a grill; and the access of the other flat owners was in no way harmed. It is in this factual context that this Court set aside the impugned notice and directed that the petitioner or her brother should not construct any wall enclosing the corridor; only a grill should be put up ensuring free flow of light and air across the enclosed corridor. Unlike in W.P.No.6874 of 2009, in the case on hand it is evident from the endorsement that fixing of the grill door had resulted in the petitioner occupying the common passage and thereby obstructing the rights of other flat owners to use the common passage. The attention of this Court has not been drawn to any statutory provision, rule, regulation or byelaw which confers on the petitioner the right to erect a grill door thereby retaining exclusive possession of a portion of the common passage and denying other flat owners the right to use the common passage meant for their use. Whether or not the action of the petitioner is in deviation of the prescribed norms is for the Municipal Corporation to decide and this Court would be loathe to impose its views on the authority or substitute its views for that of his. Since the right of the other flat owners to use the common passage is said to have been obstructed as a result of the grill being laid, the endorsement dated 10.12.2009 cannot be said to be illegal. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 15-3-2010 cvrk/asp