*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +Writ Petition No.19379 of 2005 %11.06.2010 # Bapuji Nagar Residents Welfare Association. ..Petitioner. Vs. $ The Ex-Officio cum Revenue Divisional Officer and others. ..Respondents. !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.Narayana Reddy ^Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Revenue – R1 Sri S.Nageshwara Rao – R2 Sri Ranganatha Kumar – R.3 and R.4 <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases Referred: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 19379 of 2005 ORDER: It is a matter of common knowledge that the Courts are burdened with fairly large number of frivolous litigations. There are certain busy bodies, whose avocation is only to settle scores with others by using the judicial system as the medium. This is one such writ petition. The petitioner is the Bapuju Nagar Residents’ Welfare Association. It did not file the copies of bye-laws, nor did it elaborate the nature of activities for the welfare of its members. The respondents 3 and 4 owned a plot of about 600 sq.yards in Kavali Municipality. They submitted an application to the Municipality, seeking permission to construct ground plus two upper floors. Permission was granted. On the basis of the permission, they made construction. The petitioner states that the very permission granted to the respondents 3 and 4 is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.422, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 31-07- 1998. Another contention raised by it is that though the permission was, for construction of three flats in each floor, the respondents 3 and 4 have carved out six rooms in each floor for providing residence to the bachelors. With these and other allegations, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any action on the representation made by it on 07-03-2005; against the respondents 3 and 4. Further direction is sought against the respondents 1 and 2 to act upon the said representation. The respondents 3 and 4 filed counter-affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. They state that the building was constructed strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that there are no deviations. According to them, the petitioner has the habit of troubling the persons, who are making constructions, and derives undue benefit out of it. Heard Sri V. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. More than the welfare of the so-called members of the Association, the petitioner appears to be interested in causing trouble to persons, who are making construction of the area. Even from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner filed W.P.No.13988 of 2004, when certain construction was going on. Be that as it may, the contention of the petitioner appears to be twofold: The first is that the plan sanctioned to the respondents 3 and 4 is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.422, dated 31-07-1998. Reference is made to clause 6 thereof, which deals with the group-housing and apartments, etc. It is not disclosed as to how the construction made by the respondents 3 and 4 is group housing or apartment. The petitioner does not even refer to the relevant definitions of those two expressions. Therefore, the contention in that regard cannot be accepted. The second grievance is about the non- compliance with the plans, accorded to the respondents 3 and 4. Here again, there are two facets: The first is about setbacks and the second is about the internal adjustment of the rooms. The petitioner is under the impression that the residence of individuals in each room amounts to putting the premises to commercial use. Obviously under the pressure from the petitioner, the Municipality also issued a notice dated 22-10-2005, on these lines. It only shows lack of basic understanding on the part of the petitioner, as well as the Municipality. The residence of large number of persons in a particular premises, does not amount to commercial activity. So far as the set backs are concerned, the petitioner is not clear as to the nature of deviations. It may be true that the Municipality issued a notice, pointing out certain deviations in that regard. It is always for the respondents 3 and 4, to take necessary steps about it. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to grant relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. To discourage the petitioner from indulging in such frivolous litigation, costs of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand), payable to the Municipal Corporation, Kavali, is imposed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-06-2010. KO