IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6076 of 2007 Between: Smt. Nirmala Muralidhar Mane, W/o. Sri Muralidhar Keshav Mane, R/o. H.No. 3-5-1089/2A, G & H Narayanaguda, Sree Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Having its Office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Mrs. B. Kalpana, W/o. Sri B. Shivaji Rao, R/o. H.No. 3-5-1089/1/E, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 3 Mr. B. Krishnakanth, S/o. Sri B. Shivaji Rao, H.No. 3-5-11089/1/E, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. 4 Mr. B. Shivaji Rao, S/o. B. Siva Rama Krishna, H.No. 3-5-11089/1/E, Narayanguda, 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 may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not acting upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 26-9-2006 as illegal, arbitrary, and highhanded and violative of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, as well as the building regulations in force and consequently direct the first respondent to act upon the complaint lodged by the Petitioner dated 26-9-2006 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.RAGHUNANDAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6076 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of respondent No.1 in acting upon the complaint, dated 26.09.2006, lodged by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad appearing for respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, the unofficial respondents/respondents 2 to 4 are her neighbours having the property bearing H.Nos.3-5- 1089/1/E, 3-5-1089/1/H & 3-5-1089/1H. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the unofficial respondents made illegal constructions by encroachments and extensions on the public road, in deviation to the sanctioned plan, she submitted a written representation to the 1st respondent on 26.09.2006, but till date the 1st respondent has not taken any action thereon. When the matter was listed on 29.03.2007, the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad took notice and sought time to obtain instructions. Today, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that as much as the representation purported to have been submitted by the petitioner is pending consideration, the 1st respondent is prepared to consider and dispose of the said representation. Whether respondents 2 to 4 have made any illegal constructions or not by encroaching on the public road, as alleged by the petitioner, is a matter to be considered by the 1st respondent. In absence of any material on record, this Court cannot record any finding on the allegation of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the representation dated 26.09.2006 afresh, along with the copy of this order, before the 1st respondent within a period of three weeks from today. If such representation is filed, as directed by this Court, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon after giving notice to all the affected parties. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24.04.2009 Note: Furnish CC in one week B/o v v