IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18271 of 2004 Between: All India Crime Prevention League, 14-B, Site-II, Road-I, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad rep. by its Executive Member, Sri T. John Milton, S/o. T. Yohan, Aged 24 Years, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Municipal Administration, Govt of A.P., Hyd. 2 The Director of Town Planning, Govt of A.P., Hyd. 3 The District Collector, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner, Gaddiannaram Municipality, Gaddiannaram, R.R.District. 5 The Town Planning Officer, Gaddiannaram Municipality, Gaddiannaram, R.R.Dist. 6 Mr. Koteswara Rao, R/o. Santhi Ashramam, Shrinkeswar Bazar, Besides P & T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyd-500 060. .....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 an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents 3 to 5 to act upon the representation of the petitioner dt. 31.5.2003 and Telegram Dt. 27.8.2004 and initiate proceedings in accordance with law against the 6th respondent as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, Revenue Laws and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take action in protecting the sikkam land, which is a tank situated in Survey No.62/63 at Saroornagar adjacent to Sinkeswara Bazar, Hyderabad District by initiating necessary action against 6th respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Mr.R.Thimma Reddy The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice) Grievance made by the petitioner in this petition filed as public interest litigation is that his representation dated 31st May, 2003 and telegram dated 27-8- 2004 are not being duly taken into consideration wherein there is some allegation made of the acts of omission and commission by the sixth respondent. We have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to which of the authorities has to consider the representation. It has been pointed out that respondent No.3 has to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, we will dispose of this petition with direction to the third respondent that petitioner’s representation dated 31st May, 2003 and telegram dated 27-8-2004, which are appended to the writ petition, if not already considered will be duly considered by him and he would also take note of the grievances made in this petition and pass appropriate orders thereupon in accordance with law as he may deem fit and proper within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. ___________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ 28-10-2004 _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Tvr To 1 The Director of Municipal Administration, Govt of A.P., Hyd. 2 The Director of Town Planning, Govt of A.P., Hyd. 3 The District Collector, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner, Gaddiannaram Municipality, Gaddiannaram, R.R.District. 5 The Town Planning Officer, Gaddiannaram Municipality, Gaddiannaram, R.R.Dist. 6 2 CCs to the Govt. Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. 7 2 CD copies.