0THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.28494 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the owners of premises bearing No.10-2-91/87 at West Maredpaly, Secunderabad. On an application submitted by them, the Municipal Corporation accorded permission on 09.05.2001 for construction of certain flats. One of the conditions is that not more than six vehicles shall be parked in the stilt of the complex. The petitioner submitted a complaint before respondents 1 to 3 alleging that respondents 4 and 5 and certain other persons are parking more than six vehicles. Reference is also made to O.S.No.483 of 2003 filed by respondent No.4 against the petitioner in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and dismissal thereof. A.S.No.67 of 2009 filed in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court is also said to have been dismissed. This writ petition is filed alleging that respondents 1 to 3 are not taking any steps on the complaints submitted bay the petitioners and a direction is sought against them to ensure that not more than six vehicles are parked in their premises. Respondents 4 and 5 filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the purchasers of different plots have constituted themselves into an association and that they are enjoying all their rights strictly in accordance with law. An objection is raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition. Heard Smt. M.Venkateswari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. A perusal of the various complaints submitted by the petitioners discloses that their grievance was many-fold. In addition to stating that parking of vehicles in excess of six is being resorted to, an allegation was also made to the effect that, there are threats to their lives. The grievance pointed out in this writ petition is about the parking of vehicles. Even if what is stated by the petitioners is true, there is hardly anything that respondents 1 to 3 can do about it. Parking of vehicles within the private premises is not at all the concern of the police. It is only when a specific criminal act is alleged against the owners of the vehicles, or inmates of the flats, that respondents 1 to 3 can be expected to take any action. Further, if the petitioners are of the view that the 4th respondent in his representative capacity or its members are not entitled to park their vehicles in the premises, a suit can be filed either for the relief of perpetual injunction or for other allied reliefs. Viewed form any angle, the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It is however left open to the petitioners to work out their remedies by approaching a civil Court or by making specific complaints against the concerned individuals, in case they feel that their rights are violated. In case any complaint is made, respondent No.3 shall take action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 24.02.2010 JSU 0THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.28494 of 2009 Date: 24.02.2010 JSU