IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18976 of 2006 Between: 1 Sri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, s/o late Narsing Pershad Agarwal, rep., through their GPA Holder B.Janardhan Rao, s/o Chitti Babu, aged about 30 years. 2 Smt.Rani Agarwal, w/o Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, rep., through their GPA Holder B.Janardhan Rao, s/o Chitti Babu, aged about 30 years. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rep., by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, secunderabad Divn., Secunderabad. 4 Sri Arun Gupta, r/o 6-1-101/18, Padmaraonagar, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action pursuant to the representation by removing/stopping the illegal constructions by the 4th respondent without leaving the set back space in deviation to the Building and Zoning Regulations and mandatory stipulations of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of promissory estoppel besides being established judicial precedents, and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith remove the illegal constructions raised forthwith and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.IMMANENI RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: Sri Ramarao Immaneni, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording the same, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.19.1.2009 msv