THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.29397 OF 2011 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not initiating process of demolishing illegal constructions and at the same time, causing parking difficulties, as promised by respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct respondent No.1 to initiate and demolish the illegal constructions made by respondent No.2 in the building of Kalinga Home bearing H.No.4-71-3/1/4, Lawsons Bay Colony, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 was the owner of the land to an extent of 579 sq.yards situated at Plot No.MIG 175 of Lawsons Bay, South extension lay out of Chinna Waltair Village within the limits of respondent No.1 Corporation. Respondent No.2 obtained permission from respondent No.1 for construction of residential flats i.e, Ground + 2 floors + Cellar and the Cellar was for the purpose of Car/Scooter parking. Pursuant to the sanctioned plan, respondent No.2 constructed two portions in Cellar area and also constructed the 3rd floor against the plan permitted by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 informed the flat owners and the petitioners that the constructions in the cellar portion were temporary for storage of cement and for office purpose during construction activities of the building and assured that he would demolish those constructions after completion of the building. But, respondent No.2, instead of demolishing the cellar portion constructions, converted the cellar portion into two portions and leased out to third parties. Therefore, the petitioners gave a representation on 06.04.2007 to respondent No.1 and then, respondent No.2 promised to remove the unauthorized construction in the cellar area, but no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioners again made a representation on 07.06.2010 but in vain. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that without there being any sanctioned plan, respondent No.2 made constructions in the cellar portion and hence, appropriate action has to be taken by respondent No.1 in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 contended that after giving an opportunity to respondent No.2, action would be taken in accordance with law, as per the representation made by the petitioners. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. It is alleged that respondent No.2 made constructions in the cellar area earmarked for car/scooter parking. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 has not obtained any sanction for the purpose of making constructions in the cellar. Therefore, if respondent No.2 made constructions deviating from the sanctioned plan, it is for respondent No.1 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to respondent No.2 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the representation, dated 07.06.2010, of the petitioners after giving an opportunity to respondent No.2. Since no adverse order is being passed against respondent No.2, notice to respondent No.2 in the writ petition is not necessary. There shall be no order as to costs. ​ _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 03rd November, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.29397 OF 2011 Date:03.11.2011 AMD