IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2464 of 2009 Between: Syed Haneef Pasha, S/o. Late Syed Ahmed, R/o. Door No. 2-5-62/1, Gurdapet Street, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Gadwal Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 Smt. Habeeb Bee, W/o. Late Rachal Abdul Rasheed, R/o. Door No. 2-5-62, Gurdapet Street, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 Smt. Shareefa Bee, W/o. Late Jakeer Hussain, R/o. Door No. 2-5-62, Gurdapet Street, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. .....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, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action on the part of the 1st respondent in not taking action to demolition of illegal construction made by the respondents 2 and 3 in the premises bearing Door No. 2-5-62 and 2-5-62/A, situated at Gurdapet Street, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious and malafide, and further direct the 1st respondent to take action immediately. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.P.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY (SC FOR MUNICIPALITY) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the first respondent in not taking action in demolishing the illegal construction made by respondents 2 and 3 in the premises bearing Door No. 2-5- 62 and 2-5-62/A, situated at Burdapet Street, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. It is the case of the petitioner that his father purchased the land in an extent of 2750 square feet from the first respondent-Gadwal Municipality in 1962 and that respondents 2 and 3 grabbed the land in an extent of 108.33 square feet bearing Municipal Door No.2-5-62 and made constructions, which are affecting his ingress and egress. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he made representations to the first respondent – Gadwal Municipality on 18.12.2008 and 19.01.2009 to take action against respondents 2 and 3, the first respondent has not taken any action against them so far. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Gadwal Municipality. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that since the representations of the petitioner dated 18.12.2008 and 19.01.2009 are pending consideration before the first respondent, instead of this Court going into merits of the matter, the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the said representations expeditiously, for which course of action, learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent- Gadwal Municipality to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 18.12.2008 and 19.01.2009 and take necessary action against respondents 2 and 3, after issuing notices to them, expeditiously. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 11.02.2009 va