IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 738 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/02/2009 in WP NO : 648 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Suresh B. Bapna S/o. Basanti Lal Ji Bapna R/o. 1101, A, Krushal Tower, GM Road, Chamber, Mumbai. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Dy. Commissioner Secunderabad Division, SP. Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 738 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 17-2-2009 passed in WPMP.No. 801 of 2009 in WP.No. 648 of 2009 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge directed to main statusquo obtaining as on 17-2-2009 till the disposal of the main writ petition and further directed not to make use of his building until further orders. 2. The main writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the interference of the respondents with the building constructed on the premises No. 7-2-701, 702, 700 situate at Pot Market, Secunderabad, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to apply the GO.Ms.No.901 MA dated 31-12-2007 as amended vide GO.Ms.No.112, M.A. dated 31-1-2008 and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. When the matter has come up today, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that by virtue of the interim order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant was deprived of possession of the property and also not to make use of his building and whether he is entitled for regularization of his constructions or not has to be decided in the main writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we are of the opinion that the main writ petition itself can be directed to be listed for final hearing, which can suffice the cause in WP.No.648 of 2009. Registry is directed to list WP.No. 648 of 2009 under the caption “for final hearing”, on 15-7-2009 before the appropriate court on the top of the list. 5. With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 10-6-2009 I s L