IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.28413 of 2009 Between: K. Ramakrishna ... PETITIONER(S) and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep by its Chief Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad and other …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.28413 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner and the 3rd respondent are neighbours. The petitioner submitted representations dated 29.10.2009 and 11.11.2009 to respondents 1, 2 and 4 alleging that the 3rd respondent has encroached into the public road and even has made construction enclosing the electrical pole within his premises. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken thereon. It is also stated that the construction made by the 3rd respondent is without any permission. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the learned Standing Counsel for A.P. TRANSCO. If what is stated by the petitioner is true, it amounts to failure on the part of respondents 1, 2 and 4 in enforcing the relevant provisions of law. They cannot remain oblivious to the representations made by the petitioner. If any action is warranted against the 3rd respondent, notice needs to be issued to him. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to take necessary action on the representations submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that in case any action is warranted against the 3rd respondent, he shall be put on notice. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 29th December 2009 CVRK