IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28478 of 2008 Between: Mrs.Ruksana Parveen W/o.Mr.Mohammed Jahangir Ali R/o.H.No.16-7-768, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Greater Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant City Planner, Circle No. IV, South Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the in-action on the part of the respondents in considering the representation dated 4.12.2008 and passing appropriate orders granting necessary permission in respect of the premisesbearing No. 16-7-768, situated at Chaderghat, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the orders passed in W.P.No.25846/2008 dated 26.11.2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. as arbitrary, illegal and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER On an earlier occasion, the petitioner earlier approached this Court and filed writ petition No.25846 of 2008 and the same was disposed of in the following manner. “The petitioner cannot make any unauthorized constructions. As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only attending the patchwork, but not authorized construction, he may approach the respondent Corporation by producing the approved plan, dated 24.2.1977, and after obtaining necessary permission, he may complete the required construction/patchwork.” Despite the fact that the petitioner approached the authority and gave a representation annexing the building plan dated 24.2.1977, the respondents are interfering with the construction/patchwork, which is being made by the petitioner and hence, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage in the following manner. The petitioner is hereby directed to submit a revised plan within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with all necessary documents establishing the title etc., and when such a revised plan is submitted, the respondent-authorities may consider the same keeping in mind the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and pass necessary orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. Pending consideration of the same, the petitioner shall not proceed further with any sort of construction and the respondents also shall not cause any inconvenience to the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. __________ 29-12-2008 Note: Issue CC by 10 days. (B.O)rkk