The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.27080 of 2011 Date: 19.10.2011 Between: Dr.K.N.Choudhary ..... Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Principal Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.C.M.R.Velu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Mr.R.Radhakrishna Reddy, Standing Counsel for GHMC Counsel for respondent No.5: Mr.Ch.Dhanamjaya The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3, in stopping the illegal construction, being made by respondent No.5, in house bearing No.A 2/2, BHEL Colony, Old Alwal, Secunderabad, as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take action in respect of the said illegal structure. According to the petitioner, who is the immediate neighbour to the aforementioned property of respondent No.5, the latter started making illegal construction without taking permission from respondent No.2 and that respondent No.5 demolished the compound wall existing between the petitioner’s house and his house and started laying RCC pillars without permission. The petitioner’s representations, dated 24-09-2011 and 13-09-2011, made to respondent Nos.2 to 4 having not yielded any result, he filed the present Writ Petition. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.5 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has denied the allegation that he is raising unauthorised construction in the aforesaid premises. He has stated therein that he has got the plan, approved from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for construction of ground, first and second floors vide permit No.1559/DC/NZ/CIR-16-2011, dated 22-03-2011, which is valid upto 21-03-2014, and that he has been raising construction strictly in accordance with the same. In paragraph 9 thereof, respondent No.5 has stated that if he commits any violation of or deviation to the sanctioned plan, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are free to initiate necessary action therefor. In the face of these categorical averments of respondent No.5 in his counter-affidavit, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to monitor the construction raised by respondent No.5 and take appropriate action, in the event of any deviation in the construction undertaken by respondent No.5, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.33449 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 19th October, 2011 LUR