IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4066 of 2009 Between: Afshan, W/o. Sajeed Ali Siddiqui, R/o. 1-2-167/A, Alipura, Muslimpura, Metpally Village & Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND Metpally Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT 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 an Order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering in the Petitioner construction activities without any reason as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in the Petitioners construction activities as per the plan sanctioned by the respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner stating that her husband made an application to the respondent Municipality on 10.4.2007 for construction/extending the old house in the left over open place of his existing house and permission was also granted on 11.4.2007. Even though the said permission is valid upto April 2010, officials of the respondent municipality are interfering with the construction activity without any reason and hence this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Municipality and at their request, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Municipality on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is having permission to construct/extend the old house upto April, 2010. It is also stated that the authorities of the Municipality will interfere with the construction activity only in cases of violation of the sanctioned plan. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the officials of the respondent Municipality shall not interfere in the construction activity of the petitioner as per the sanctioned plan. However, it is made clear that if the constructions are in violation of the sanctioned plan, the respondent is at liberty to take appropriate action. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.2.3.2009 msv