IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23335 of 2008 Between: M.Madhusudan Reddy S/o.Narsa Reddy R/o. Plot No.1, Vanitha Colony, Bhavana Enclave, Boienpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Secunderabad Contonment Board, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Office, Secunderabad, A.P. 2 P.Subhash Reddy S/o. Sathi Reddy R/o.H.No.1-1-2-187, Vanitha Colony, Bhavana Enclave, Road No.16, Boinpally, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any order or direction or writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in not taking any action against the Respondent No.2 on the complaint dated 31.1.2008 vide In Ward No.68 dated 31.1.2008 lodged by the petitioner regarding the illegal construction of the building at House bearing No. 1-12-187 situated at Vanitha Colony, Bhavana Enclave, Road No.16, Boienpally, Secunderabad as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, malaﬁde null and void and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to take appropriate action against Respondent No.2 as per Law and pass such other or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.MOHAN PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by M. Madhusudan Reddy assailing the in action of the ﬁrst respondent on the complaint, dated 31.01.2008 made by him with regard to illegal constructions of the second respondent. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Plot No.1 at Vanitha Colony, Bhavana Enclave, Secunderabad. He submitted a representation before the ﬁrst respondent complaining unauthorized constructions being made by the second respondent. There being no action on the part of the ﬁrst respondent, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission learned Standing Counsel of Secunderabad Cantonment Board, represented by its Chief Executive Oﬃcer, Secunderabad received notice on behalf of the first respondent. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the ﬁrst respondent is not taking any action on the complaint made by him with regard to the illegal constructions made by the second respondent. In that view of he matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the ﬁrst respondent to consider the complaint made by the petitioner with regard to illegal constructions made by the second respondent and pass appropriate orders, after putting the aﬀected parties on notice, including the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 24th October, 2008 Js.