IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.15732 of 2008 Between: M. Sudhakar Reddy, S./o. Late Dhana Reddy, R/o. H.No. 8-7-167/16/1, Raja Reddy Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 3 N. Venkatesh, S/o. Narsimlu, R/o. H.No. 8-7-171/26, Laxmi Narsimha Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. .....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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st & 2nd respondents herein to remove the unauthorized constructions including the gate erected by the 3rd respondent on 25' wide road on East of 3rd respondents property and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ERANKI.PHANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT. KALPANA EKBOTE, SC FOR GHMC. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR.PALLE NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to remove the unauthorized constructions including the gate erected by the third respondent. It is the case the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the premises bearing Municipal No.8-7-167/1, Raja Reddy Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 29.07.1993. It is stated that the third respondent has encroached the public road and started raising constructions and therefore, the petitioner made a complaint to respondents 1 and 2 on 08.11.2007. When the officials of respondents 1 and 2 were making an inspection and taking note of the deviations and the encroachment by the third respondent, the third respondent along with his other henchmen manhandled the officials of respondents 1 and 2. It is further stated that the third respondent is threatening the neighbourers that if they interfere with his illegal constructions, he will manhandle them and that due to the influence of third respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are not removing the unauthorized constructions including the gate erected by the third respondent. Hence, this writ petition. This Court, on 22.07.2008, while issuing notice before admission, directed the first respondent to depute a responsible officer to the site of the third respondent and note down whether the constructions made by the third respondent are in accordance with the sanctioned plan and if not to initiate necessary action against him. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondent-Municipality produced the report given by the Assistant City Planner, Kukatpally Circle-14, GHMC. In the said report it is observed as under: “The site under reference has been inspected by the Addl. Chief City Planner, GHMC on 19.08.2008 to comply the order of Hon’ble High Court and taken photographs of the structure so far erected and taken measurements of the structure erected at the site, and also served notice U/s 452 of HMC Act duly mentioning the deviations made by the petition. In the mean time this office has received Telegram addressed to the Dy.Commissioner, Kukatpally Circle informing that one Sri N.Venkatesh, has field writ petition in W.P.No.18884 of 2008 against Dy.Commissioner, Kukatpally Circle stating that the Hon’ble High Court after hearing the arguments on 29.08.2008 the Hon’ble Court pleased to suspended the show cause notice dated 22.08.2008 and also directed your authority not to demolish the house bearing No.8-7- 171/33A Plot No.33, Sy.No.44, Old Bowenpally.” A perusal of the above report clearly indicates that the third respondent herein has encroached the road and made constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan and therefore the Municipality also issued a notice under Section 452 of the HMC Act and questioning the same the third respondent filed W.P.No.18884 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.08.2008 directing him to submit explanation to the show cause notice within a week from that date. This Court also directed that till the disposal of his explanation, the deviations, if any, shall not be meddled with by the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition directed the authorities to take necessary action against the third respondent after considering the explanation submitted by the third respondent herein, so far no action has been initiated. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to direct the respondent- Corporation to take necessary action against the third respondent after taking into consideration the explanation, if any, submitted by the third respondent pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.18884 of 2008, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 03.02.2009 va