IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4518 of 2007 Between : 1 Om Prakash Gupta S/o.Ganeshlal, R/o.21-2-131/ 7 to 9 Charkaman, Hyderabad 2 Smt.Sharada Bai W/o.Om prakash Gupta R/o.21-2-131/ 7 to 9 Charkaman, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra pradesh, rep.by its secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep.by its Commissioner, MCH Complex, Tank Bund Road,Hyderabad 3 Satyajeet Agarwal S/o.Kedarnath Agarwal, R/o.21-6-477, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad 4 Smt.Vijaya Laxmi Agarwal W/o.Satyajeet Agarwal R/o.21-6-477, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad .....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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in respect of illegal, construction being made by the 3rd and 4th respondents at premises bearing No.21-2-186 and 187 Charkaman, Hyderabad for being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955 and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith demolish the illegal, construction made by the 3rd and 4th respondents. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners, who claim to be the owners of premises bearing Nos.21-2-131/7 to 9 of Charkaman, Hyderabad, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of 2nd respondent/Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in not taking steps for removal of illegal constructions made by respondents 3 and 4 in the premises bearing Nos.21-2-186 and 187 of Charkaman, Hyderabad. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that respondents 3 and 4 are carrying on constructions in the premises bearing Nos.21-2-186 and 187, unauthorizedly and illegally. It is stated that the constructions are being made without leaving any parking place, set-backs etc., by encroaching upon the public passage. It is further stated that inspite of the fact that a notice was issued to respondents 3 and 4 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, but thereafter, no steps have been taken to issue final orders to remove the illegal constructions. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that respondents 3 and 4 had obtained permission vide permit No.135/25 for construction of ground, first and partly second floor in the premises bearing Nos.21-2-186 and 187 of Vallabh Das Building, Charkaman, Hyderabad, but they made constructions by deviating the sanctioned plan. It is stated that when they have issued notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act on 17.04.2006, respondents 3 and 4 have filed a suit in O.S.No.2072 of 2006 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained status quo orders in I.A.No.987 of 2006. It is stated that on receipt of summons in the said proceedings, they filed counter, and subsequently, I.A.No.987 of 2006 was dismissed. It is further stated that thereafter, final notice under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, was issued on 05.03.2007, and thereafter, the deviated portions were demolished on 12.03.2007. It is stated that yet another suit was filed by the petitioners herein in O.S.No.2532 of 2006 on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and respondents 3 and 4, and the same is also pending consideration. 4. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the 2nd respondent/Municipal Corporation has not removed all the illegal constructions made by respondents 3 and 4, but at the same time, in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/Municipal Corporation, it is clearly stated that they have removed the deviated portions of constructions after dismissal of I.A.No.987 of 2006 in O.S.No.2072 of 2006, on 12.03.2007. The 2nd respondent has also denied the allegation of petitioners that respondents 3 and 4 were making constructions by encroaching upon the road. Even according to the petitioners, they did not make any representation pointing out further deviations, if any, committed by respondents 3 and 4, after removal of deviated portions on 12.03.2007. In view of the removal of the constructions made by respondents 3 and 4 in deviation to the sanctioned plan2007, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent has not acted after issuing notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Though notice is issued under Section 452 of the said Act, which is in the nature of a show cause notice, but further steps were not taken immediately in view of interim orders passed in I.A.No.987 of 2006 in O.S.No.2072 of 2006 filed by respondents 3 and 4. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit that after dismissal of I.A.No.987 of 2006, a further notice was issued to respondents 3 and 4 under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act on 05.03.2007, which was served on 06.03.2007, and deviated portions were removed on 12.03.2007, it cannot be said that there was inaction on the part of 2nd respondent in taking steps for removal of deviated portions of constructions made by respondents 3 and 4. If any deviations are there, it is open for the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the 2nd respondent/Municipal Corporation, but they are not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. Further, the suit filed by the petitioners as well as respondents 3 and 4 are also pending consideration before the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to entertain this writ petition, particularly in view of the statement made by the 2nd respondent/Commissioner for Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, that the deviated portions are already dismantled on 12.03.2007. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd April 2009 ajr