IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13063 of 2009 Between: Dr.(Mrs) Jamuna Devi W/o. Dr Suryanath Gudidevuni H.No.1-2-216/A Street No.9 Domalguda,Hyderabad-500029 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep.by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Hyderabad 2 The Additional City Planner Town Planning Section Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad 3 Dr.Subhash L.Paryani S/o. Lekhmichand H.No.1-8-246/7 (1st Floor) Sindhi Colony S.P Road, Secunderabad 4 Dr.Kiran Kumar S/o.Dr Subhash L.Paryani H.No.1-8-246/7 (1st Floor) Sindhi Colony S.P Road, 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 issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ or orders holding that the failure on the part of Respondents Nos 1 and 2 to take action of the against the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried on premises Nos 1-8-92 to 1-8- 102/A,B,C,D,E(forming part Bungalow No 134) situated at prenderghast Road Secunderabad by respondents 3&4 as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the respondents 1&2 to demolish the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SOMA KONDA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 13063 of 2009 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in taking action against the illegal and unauthorized constructions being made by respondents 3 and 4 at premises bearing Nos.1-8-92 to 1-8- 102/A,B,C,D,E Prenderghast road, Secunderabad is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also sought further direction to respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the alleged unauthorized constructions made by the respondents 3 and 4. Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Corporation under instructions stated that the Corporation had initiated action against respondents 3 and 4 for the illegal and unauthorized constructions being made by them and notices under Section 452 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 were already served on them. It is also stated that further construction has been stopped and necessary action would be taken following due process of law. In the circumstances, no further enquiry is necessary in the writ petition. Accordingly, recording the statement of the learned standing counsel for the Corporation, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to proceed in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 09-07-2009 KLP