HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2392 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, against the 1st respondent, to consider the representation, dated 04.12.2003, filed by the petitioner, seeking to remove the unauthorized constructions made by the 2nd respondent-builder. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent-builder has obtained permission from the 1st respondent-Municipality in L.P.No.101/95, for construction of a residential complex with ground plus five upper floors over Plot Nos.850, 851, 852 and 857 of Magunta layout in Nellore. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent has constructed the residential complex, named ‘Dheeraj Hights’, and the petitioner has purchased Flat No.305 in the said complex. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent-builder has made constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan, by constructing a shop in the parking area and also by constructing a pent house in the 6th floor. It is stated that in view of the illegal constructions made by the 2nd respondent, much inconvenience is caused to the residents of the complex, and that due to construction of pent house, the structure may not be able to bear the additional load. It is further stated by the petitioner that though she has submitted a representation, dated 04.12.2003 to the 1st respondent- Commissioner with all these aspects, but no steps have been taken by the 1st respondent to remove the illegal constructions made by the 2nd respondent. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Though the writ petition is of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent- Commissioner. However, the 2nd respondent has filed counter-affidavit, admitting the fact of making illegal constructions, but stated that a shop was constructed in the corner of parking area, only at the request of the residents of the complex. It is stated that when the said structure was tried to be removed by the 1st respondent- Commissioner, she has filed a suit in O.S.No.41 of 2004 before the Civil Court, and obtained permanent injunction through the judgment and decree, dated 29.04.2004. It is alleged by the 2nd respondent in her counter that the petitioner has filed this writ petition, making all false allegations, as she was not allowed to use the premises for unlawful activities. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Though it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that they have submitted an application before the 1st respondent-Municipality for regularization of the structures in question, but however, no material is placed in proof of filing any such application. 6. In this writ petition, it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent-Municipality has granted permission to the 2nd respondent for construction of ground plus five upper floors only, but, even according to the 2nd respondent, she has constructed a shop in the parking area and also a pent house in 6th floor, contrary to the sanctioned plan. Though it is stated by the 2nd respondent that the said shop was constructed only at the request of the residents, but even then, the same is not permissible in the absence of any permission from the competent authority. Further, a perusal of the decree obtained by the 2nd respondent in the civil suit in O.S.No.41 of 2004, shows that it only prevents the 1st respondent from taking any action against the 2nd respondent as otherwise than due process of law. It does not mean that the said judgment and decree will protect the 2nd respondent from initiating action by the 1st respondent, in accordance with law, for removal of unauthorized constructions. Further, no proof is filed by the 2nd respondent in support of her contention that she has filed a representation before the Municipality for regularization of the constructions in question. 7. It is evident from the affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as from the counter filed by the 2nd respondent that there are certain unauthorized constructions being made by the 2nd respondent, contrary to the sanctioned plan. If the 2nd respondent has filed any application before the Municipality seeking for regularization of such constructions, and if any orders are passed thereon, it is for the 2nd respondent to place such orders before the competent authority, but the same is not a ground to prevent the Municipality from initiating steps for removing the unauthorized constructions. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent-Commissioner to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.12.2003, and to take appropriate steps for removal of unauthorized constructions, by duly following the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. Further, it is made clear that if any orders are passed for regularizing the structures, it is open for the 2nd respondent to place such orders before the competent authority. 9. Subject to above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd August 2009 N.B : Furnish C.C. in one week. (b/o) kvr/ajr