IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.3970 of 2008 Between: Welfare Association of Sitaram Nagar Co-operative Colony, a Society registered under the provisions of A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, bearing Registration No.1479, reptd., by its Secretary- Sri C.S.Prakash Rao, s/o.Seetaramaiah, 59 years, R/o. Plot No.19, Sitaram Nagar Colony, Sikh Village, Secunderabad-09 … Petitioners And Secunderabad Cantonment Board, reptd., by its Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad and seven others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Venugopal for Sri Ravi Cheemalapati. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee for R.1 to R.3 Sri M.V.Durga Prasad for Sri A.Gopala Krishnamacharyulu for R.4 to R.6 Sri C.Ramachandra Raju for R.7. None for R.8 This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandmus to declare the Secunderabad Cantonment Board’s Resolution No.9(9) dated 30-12-2006 in respect of property in Survey No.157/7 of Pedda Thokatta village of Secunderabad Cantonment as illegal, unauthorized, without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short “the Act”) and also Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought for a declaration that the constructions that are being carried out pursuant to the said Resolution are illegal and without jurisdiction and direct to demolish the said constructions. The case has been heard at length. It is on record that against a notice issued under Section 320 of the Act and an order passed under Section 238 of the Act rejecting approval of the revised plans submitted by respondents 4 to 6, two separate appeals have been filed before respondent No.8 under Section 340 of the Act by respondents 4 to 6. Though Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, made elaborate submissions on the action of the Cantonment Board in approving the plan in favour of respondent No.7, to whom respondents 4 to 6 appeared to have succeeded, having regard to the fact that the statutory appeals filed by respondents 4 to 6 against the above mentioned notice and the order are pending before the appellate authority-respondent No.8, I am of the view that it is not necessary at this stage for this Court to go into the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The necessity of adjudicating the issues raised by the petitioner on the above aspect will arise only after disposal of the appeals filed by respondents 4 to 6 by respondent No.8. Further, disposal of the Writ Petition on merits may be likely to have its affect on the pending appeals. Learned counsel for both the parties, therefore, fairly agreed that respondent No.8 may be directed to dispose of the appeals within a time frame and the parties can be left free to avail their respective remedies in law after disposal of the appeals. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, with liberty to it to raise such contentions as and when necessary. Respondent No.8 is directed to dispose of the appeals within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending the appeals, no action for demolition of the structures already constructed shall be taken and respondents 4 to 6 shall not raise any further constructions. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:06-2-2009 MNR