IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11037 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Jahangir Khan S/o. Mohd. Late Nazeer Khan R/o. H.No. 6-2-112/1/1, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. Deputy Commissioner, Circle No. III, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 2 Sri M. Laxma Reddy S/o. Not known R/o. H.No. 7-1-383/110, Vinay Nagar Colony Chempapet, Cydabad Colony, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 1st respondent in not taking action on the complaint given by the petitioner on 2-4-2009 about the illegal, construction raised by the 2nd respondent in Sy.No. 49/1 of Bahadurguda Village, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and consequentially direct the 1st respondent to demolish the unauthorized structures raised in Sy.No. 49/1 of Bahadurguda Village, Hyderabad by considering the complaint given by the petitioner on 2-4-2009 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.K.AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11037 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any action on the representation made by the petitioner dated 2.4.2009 complaining about the alloeged illegal construction raised by the 2n d respondent in Survey No.49/1 of Bahadurguda Village, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation. Having regard to the fact that the representation made by the petitioner is pending before the 1st respondent, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 2.4.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the 2nd respondent to rebut the allegations as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:08.06.2009 mrb