IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.28145 of 2008 Between: Manikyam S/o.Late Annamalai, R/o.Plot No.42, Prudential bank colony Phase II,Subhashnagar , Alwal Municipality, Secunderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Alwal Municipality Secunderabad 3 N.Badaharan Reddy S/o.Ramachandra Reddy R/o.Plot No.43,Prudential Bank colony,Phase II Subhashnagar, Alwal Municipality, 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 declare the in action of the 1 and 2 respondents on the complaints made against the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice an direct the 1 and 2 respondents to take necessary action against the 3rd respondent construction by way of order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: VINJAMURI RANGA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.28145 of 2008 ORDER: According to the petitioner, he is a resident of Plot No.42, Prudential Bank Colony, Phase II, Subhash Nagar, Alwal Municipality, Secunderabad. The said house was constructed way back in the year 1996 as per the approved building plan. While so, the third respondent, who is the neighbour of the petitioner, started constructing a house and as the construction of the said house is contrary to the Building Regulations, the petitioner approached him and requested him not to make any unauthorized construction, as it is causing inconvenience to him. But the third respondent did not heed to the petitioner. The petitioner approached respondents 1 and 2 but they have not taken any action against the third respondent. Hence, he approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Corporation, this Court is of the view to dispose of the Writ Petition at the admission stage by dispensing with the usual notice to the unofficial respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the second respondent to cause a detailed enquiry into the representations made by the petitioner and find out as to whether the said construction made by the third respondent is in accordance with the approved building plan or not and thereafter, may take necessary action, if it is contrary to the said approved building plan. As this Court is dispensing with the usual notice to the third respondent, the second respondent is hereby directed to put the third respondent on notice before he holds any enquiry or initiate any action. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four {4} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 26th December 2008 RRB