IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6008 of 2008 Between: G.Lakshminarayana S/o.Vishnuvardhanarao, R/o.Prasadampadu(V) Vijayawada(R)&(M) Krishna Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Municipal Administration and Urban Development(M) Department Secretariat,Saifabad Hyd 2 Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority Vijayawada Krishna Dist 3 Prasadampadu G.P Rep.by its Executive Authority Cum- Panchayat Seretary Prasadampadu(V) Vijayawada Rural(M) Krishna Dist 4 Makineni Siva Sankara Prasad S/o,not known R/o.D.No.3-75/1 Prasadampadu(V) Vijayawada Rural(M) Krishna Dist .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1to 3 in not initiating preventive steps against the 4th respondent from constructing multi Storied apartmental complex contrary to sanction plan in B.P.No.157/07 dt.10-9-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal arbitrary violative of provisions of A.P Urban Areas (Development) Act 1975 Hyderabad Revised Building Rules 2006 as made applicable to the 2nd respondents 1to 3 to remove unauthorized portion of building and See that the building is constructed as per sanction plan. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. M.PRABHAKARA RAO, STANDING COUNSEL. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by G.Lakshminarayana assailing the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not considering his representation dated 25.02.2008 complaining the unauthorized construction being made by Makineni Siva Sankra Prasad-4th respondent. 2. The petitioner and the 4th respondent are neighbours to each other. When the 4th respondent proceeding with the constructions, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 complaining that the constructions that are being made by the 4th respondent are in contravention of the sanctioned plan vide BP No.157/07, dated 10.09.2007. There being no action on the representation submitted by the petitioner, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 4. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.02.2008 to the 3rd respondent complaining the unauthorized constructions being made by the 4th respondent. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 25.02.2008 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon after putting the affected party i.e. 4th respondent on notice. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:29th September, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}