IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 25006 of 2001 BETWEEN: Kurella Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Venkata Siva Rama Krishna Sharma, R/o. D.No.5/12-5, Brodipet, Guntur. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur. 2 The Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 Sri B. Ramanaiah, Brodipet Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur. 5 Sri C.H.Tirupathi Rao, Block No.1, Shop No.2, Brodipet Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur. 6 Sri C.H.Tirupathaiah, Block No.1, Shop No.3, Brodipet Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur. 7 Sri U.Satyanarayana, Block No.1, Shop No.4, Brodipet Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur. 8 Sri U.Satyanarayana, Block No.1, Shop No.5, Brodipet Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur. 9 Sri Y.Satyanarayana, Block No.1, Shop No.6, Brodipet Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur. 10 Sri U.Venkata Rathnam, Block No.1, Shop No.7, Brodipet Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur. ...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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in proceeding with the construction of 2nd and 3rd floors in Brodipet Vegetable Market, Guntur without obtaining prior permission from the respondents 2 and 3 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to Sections 14 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Town Planning Act, 1920 and further declare that entrusting the work of construction by the first respondent to 4th respondent as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and further declare the allotting Shop Nos.2 to 7 to respondents 5 to 10 in a lower rates as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.T.S.VENKATARAMANA MR. G. PEDA BABU GP FOR MUN. ADMN & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that the Municipal Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation submitted proposals for construction of shopping complex under centrally sponsored scheme on a public road to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad, who, in turn, submitted the proposals to the respondents 2 and 3. He further submits after perusing the entire proposals the Government/third respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.535, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 08.07.1998 permitting the first respondent to construct a shopping complex in a valuable municipal land as per the guidelines annexed to the aforesaid G.O. He further submits that the first respondent initially submitted the proposal to the third respondent for construction of cellar and first floor of shopping complex and the same has been approved by the Government through the second respondent. Thereafter, the proposal has been forwarded for construction of second and third floors contrary to the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Town Planning Act, 1920. The first respondent has not obtained any sanction for the construction of second and third floors from the respondents 2 and 3 therefore, the construction of second and third floors is illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner making several other allegations submits that the action of the first respondent in proceeding with the constriction of second and third floors in Brodipet Vegetable Market, Guntur without obtaining any prior permission is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Counter has been filed by the first respondent as early as on 19.04.2003 stating that the first respondent submitted proposals to the Government for construction of cellar and first floor of the shopping complex. The original designs for the entire structure were got approved for cellar and three floors and the Engineer in Chief (Public Health) gave technical sanction for cellar and two floors and the structural designs were approved by the Engineer in Chief for cellar and three floors in the initial stage itself. Accordingly, the sanction was obtained for parking, ground floor and second floor as per the original estimate and as there were some changes in the structural configuration during construction, the same was referred to Superintending Engineer (Public Health) and obtained revised designs on 23.08.1999. The construction was done accordingly. It is further stated that the construction was made strictly in accordance with the approved design only and the shops, which were constructed, were disposed by public auction and the highest bids were also accepted by the Council in its Resolution No.9/26-5-2000. It is further stated that the second and third floors have been constructed as per the approved plan only and the same were allotted to the unofficial respondents as they being the successful bidders in the public auction. It is stated that there was no illegality or irregularity either with regard to the construction of the building or with regard to the allotment of the shops, which were disposed by way of public auction, in favour of the highest bidders. It is also stated that the allotment of shops to vegetable vendors were taken up strictly as per rules and eligibility. 4. No reply has been filed to the aforesaid counter and the petitioner is not affected in any manner relating to his personal right or public right. However, I do not see any bonafides on the part of the petitioner in filing such a writ petition to prevent the first respondent in proceeding with the construction of second and third floors of a shopping complex. The relief claimed in this writ petition is to prevent first respondent from proceeding with the construction but the construction has already been made and the shops have been allotted to the highest successful bidders and even after the dismissal of the WPMP.No.31630 of 2001, no steps have been taken to amend the writ prayer or to dispute the contentions in the counter. As the second and third floors of the shopping complex have already been constructed, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 18, 2008 DSK