IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11674 of 2009 Between: The Vijaywada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice Chairman R/o. Governorpet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 G. Narayana Rao General Secretary of UDA Plot Owners Welfare Association, UDA Colony, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District. 2 A.P.State Human Rights Commission, rep. by its Registrar, Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad-01. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order in H.R.Case No.2511 of 2007 dated 28.01.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the procedure contemplated under the protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: K.ARUNA(SC FOR V.G.T.M.U.D.A) Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) The petitioner, the Vijayawada Guntur Tenali Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, represented by its Chairman, filed this writ petition questioning the order in H.R.No.2511 of 2007, dated 28.1.2009, passed by the A.P.State Human Rights Commission as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It is stated that the first respondent made a complaint before the 2nd respondent complaining that the petitioner is not providing amenities to the Housing Colony at Chenchupet, Tenali, which was developed by the petitioner, and it is not enough for the said authority to allot the plots and wash out the hands and basic amenities have got to be provided, otherwise it will be violation of Human Rights of the persons occupying the sanctioned houses/plots. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply giving particulars of various land uses as per the lay out approved, creation of infrastructure in the lay out, amounts due from the allottees, expenditure incurred on IUDP Scheme, fulfillment of layout conditions, construction of water tank, educational facilities etc. After hearing both the parties and after perusing the material papers on record including the pleadings of both the parties, the 2nd respondent issued the following directions: 1. The open area on the sumps has to be cleared and leveled. 2. Drain should be formed for letting out of rain and drainage water. 3. Protected drinking water supply is to be arranged. 4. Pacca roads have to be formed. 5. A Primary/Middle School has to be set up for compulsory educating children of the said housing colony, who are aged between 6 and 15, and 6. Medical and Shopping facilities have got to be provided. The petitioner is directed to comply with the aforesaid directions and report compliance before the Commission by 18.6.2009. The said order was passed in January, 2009, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that most of the directions have been complied with. It is stated that the first direction with regard to the open area on the slumps had been complied with. It is also stated that part of the 2nd direction had been complied with and it is for the concerned Municipalities to follow the said direction. It is stated that the 3rd direction with regard to the protected drinking water supply has also to be complied with by the Municipalities. It is also stated that the 4th direction has been complied with to the extent of 50%. With regard to the 5th direction, it is stated that school building was also provided by the petitioner and a school is being run by private management. With regard to the sixth direction, it is stated that shops have been constructed and some private individual has to start medical shop The 2nd respondent has not finally disposed of the said case. If any of the directions are not complied with, it is for the petitioner to report the same to the 2nd respondent, so as to enable it to give appropriate directions. We are not inclined to express any opinion as to whether the petitioner has strictly complied with all the terms and conditions contained in the lay out or not, as the matter is still pending before the 2nd respondent. We are not inclined to admit the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at admission stage with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Human Rights Commission as referred to above. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________ P.SWAOOP REDDY, J. 17.6.2009 Note: Issue copy by tomorrow B.O. kpr