IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.20857 of 2009 Between: Smt M.Sunitha ... PETITIONER(S) and The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation rep by its Municipal Commissioner, Karimnagar and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.20857 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner and the 4th respondent are the neighbours in Kattarampur area of Karimnagar Town. The 4th respondent has undertaken construction of a building in her premises. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11316 of 2008 alleging that the complaints submitted by her on 10.03.2008 and 07.04.2008 raising objection for the construction were not take into account by the Municipal Corporation. The 4th respondent pleaded therein that she submitted an application under BPS scheme for regularization of the constructions made in deviation of sanctioned plan and unless the said application is disposed of no punitive action can be taken against her. The writ petition was disposed of on 06.11.2008 directing that the Municipal Corporation shall initiate steps against the 4th respondent, depending upon the outcome of the application filed under BPS scheme. The Writ Appeal No.1568 of 2008 filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 05.08.2009 almost upholding the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.11316 of 2008. This writ petition is filed alleging that the 4th respondent has proceeded with the construction and though as many as four representations were made in August 2009, no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation for respondents 1 to 3, and the learned counsel for 4th respondent. This is the second round of litigation as between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in relation to the construction undertaken by the latter. The petitioner alleges that the construction is being made in contravention of the building bylaws. The 4th respondent also admits that there are certain deviations. However, she has filed an application to give her the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31.12.2007. The scheme itself provides that till such application is disposed of, the Municipal Corporation shall not take any punitive action. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents 1 to 3 did not commit any illegality in not proceeding against the objectionable construction undertaken by the 4th respondent. Pendency of an application under BPS scheme is an impediment for them to take further action. The matter cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take up the application submitted by the 4th respondent for regularization, along with the objections raised by the petitioner, and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The nature of action to be initiated against the concerned shall depend on the outcome of such exercise. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 29th December 2009 CVRK