THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26248 of 2011 Dated 20th September, 2011 Between: Shaik Mohammed Mansoor …Petitioner And The Government of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms.D.Geetha Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 15.09.2011, of respondent No.3, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s application filed for regularisation under Building Penalisation Scheme (BPS). I have heard Ms.D.Geetha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC representing the respondents. The petitioner constructed a building without obtaining permission. He has applied for regularisation under BPS. The said application was rejected by the impugned proceedings, dated 15.09.2011, of respondent No.3, on the ground that despite a letter issued to him, the petitioner failed to pay the balance penal amount of Rs.91,739/-. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that under Clause-11 of the BPS, the petitioner has the remedy of filing an appeal to the Committee constituted by the Government. In view of availability of effective alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the same day on which the order of rejection was passed by respondent No.3, a notice under Section 452(1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued. The learned counsel stated that there is therefore a threat of demolition. Inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal and seek appropriate orders therein, the respondents are directed not to enforce the notice, dated 15.09.2011, issued under Section 452(1) of the Act for a period of four weeks. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.32400 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th September, 2011 VGB