IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7929 of 2009 Between: Ch. Ramachandra Murthy, S/o. Late Ch. Subba Rao, R/o. H.No. 3-14-35/2/B/1, Street No. 4, Srinivasapuram Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 13. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of AP Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Uppal Municipality, Uppal, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in not considering and disposing of the representations dated 25-2-2009 and 23-3-2009 against the construction being made on the Eastern side of petitioner house bearing No. 3-14-35/2/B/1 situated at Street No. 4, Srinivasapuram Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 13 on the plot No. 35 by one Sri Srinivas as illegal, improper, unjust, and arbitrary further action on the representation dated 25-2-2009 and 23-3- 2009 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he is the owner of House bearing No.3-14-35/2/B/1, situated at Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, and on the eastern side of his house, there is a plot in an extent of 120 Sq. yards belonging to one Srinivas. While so, Srinivas, after obtaining approval from respondent Nos.2 and 3 for construction of Ground + 1st Floor, started constructing Ground + three floors, without leaving proper set back, which is in deviation of the sanctioned plan, thereby causing obstruction to the ventilation to the petitioner’s house. Then, the petitioner made two representations in succession dated 25.02.2009 and 23.3.2009 to the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, to take steps to prevent Srinivas from making illegal construction, and now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 3rd respondent has neither taken any steps against Srinivas to prevent him from making illegal constructions nor passed any orders on his representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Admittedly, the representations dated 25.02.2009 and 23.03.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent are pending consideration, and having regard to the fact that Srinivas, who is allegedly making illegal constructions in deviation of the sanctioned plan without leaving proper set back, is a private party and not made a party- respondent to the writ petition, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel have agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, is directed to consider the representations dated 25.02.2009 and 23.3.2009, said to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, after issuing notice to the affected party, in accordance with law.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 18th April, 2009 Note: Furnish copy by Monday B/o bcj