IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 7185 of 2009 Between: 1 B. Srinivas, S/o. Iddaiah, residing at 8585, Spice wood, Strints Road, Apt. No. 211, Austin, Texsas, USA 78759,Rep. by the GPA Holder Smt. K. Vijayalakshmi, W/o. K. Murali, aged 60 years, Resident of 1-8-108/1, Chikkadpally, Hyd. 2 Dr. B. Sukanya, W/o. B. Srinivas, R/o. H.No. 1-8-108/1, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and Presently residing at 8585, Spice wood, Strints Road, Apt. No. 211, Austin, Texsas, USA 78759 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy. Commissioner, GHMC, SLP (N), Circle II, Hyderabad 3 Smt. Ch. Lakshmi, W/o. Ch. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. Flat No. 146, Rd. No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4 B. Ravi Kumar, S/o Mallaiah, Flat No. 103-A, I Floor, Thomas Prabhu Realance Complex, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 029 .....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 writ, order or direction in more in the nature of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in taking action against Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on the representation dated 18-2-2009 submitted by the Petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 300A of the constitution of India and consequentely to direct the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to take immediate steps to present the illegal construction being made by the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 over the 5th Floor of Surya Planet Apartment situated at Survey No. 56, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally (N), R.R. District. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.SUDHIR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.7185 of 2009 ORDER: The deponent namely Smt.K.Vijayalakshmi claims to be the General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioners, who are none other than her son-in-law and daughter respectively. According to her, the petitioners purchased the flat bearing No.303 in the 3rd floor of Pranava’s Surya Planet Apartment situated at Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality (presently in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation), Ranga Reddy District, from one Achanta Kutumba Rao, one of the owners of the land on which the said apartment was constructed, through a registered sale deed dated 20.09.2008, and since then, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the said flat. The deponent contends that, as the petitioners left for abroad in connection with their employment, she has been authorized to look-after the said flat. The said apartment consists of stilt + five upper floors, which was constructed after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities vide permit No.6262/p4/Plg/HUDA/05, dated 09.09.2005. While so, respondents 3 and 4, having no right whatsoever over the apartment in question, started construction of the 6th floor over the said apartment, without obtaining any permission from the 1st respondent Corporation. The grievance of the deponent is that on her coming to know about the said illegal constructions being made by respondents 3 and 4, she submitted a representation to the 1st respondent, as early as on 18.02.2009, seeking immediate action to be taken to prevent the said illegal constructions, and the 1st respondent, having acknowledged the same, assigned a Grievance Registration No.09CSC1010 dated 18.02.2009, but till date her representation remained unattended. Hence, she approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent, namely the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is directed to consider the representation, dated 18.02.2009, submitted on behalf of the petitioners, after issuing notice to the 3rd and 4th respondents pointing out the illegal construction of the 6th floor alleged to have been made by them, taking into consideration reply, if any, to be submitted by them to such notice, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible.” The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 07.04.2009 v v