IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14261 of 2009 Between: V. Malla Reddy & others. ..... Petitioners AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P. Kesava Rao Counsel for respondent -1: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondents 2-6: Sri C. Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondents 7&8: Sri V. Venkataramana The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14261 of 2009 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 6 in disposing of the petitioners’ letters/representations dated 20.04.2009, 27.04.2009 and 12.05.2009 and taking appropriate action in pursuance thereof, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P. Keshava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8. The petitioners are the residents of Street No.7 of Hubsiguda, Hyderabad. They claim to be the members of New Found Land Cooperative Housing Society Limited. They have averred that originally the premises bearing house No.1-4-11 in Plot No.6/A admeasuring 500 square yards situated in Street No.7, Hubsiguda, Hyderabad, was owned by one Sri T. Sanjeeva Reddy and that the said T. Sanjeeva Reddy sold the above said premises to respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the year 2008 under registered sale deeds. After purchase of the said premises, the said respondents have demolished the existing premises and commenced new construction in March/April 2009. The petitioners further averred that on noticing that the columns raised by respondent Nos.7 and 8 are in violation of the set backs, they have raised objections. As respondent Nos.7 and 8 were proceeding with further construction without rectifying the said violations, the petitioners submitted representation dated 20.04.2009 to respondent No.4 for taking appropriate action, that as the said representation was not considered, they have made another representation dated 12.05.2009 to respondent No.3 and that as no action was taken on the said representations by respondent Nos.3 and 4, they filed the present Writ Petition. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.7 and 8, it is inter alia stated that on their application, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has granted permission to construct residential building with stilt plus three floors, that in pursuance of the said permission, they have started construction and also completed the same by taking all precautionary measures and that there are no deviations in respect of the floors and building. Inasmuch as the grievance of the petitioners appears to be legitimate in the sense that when a complaint lodged alleging violation of the bye-laws and the statutory provisions governing construction of buildings are brought to the notice of respondent Nos.3 and 4, it is their bounden duty to consider and take appropriate action. Therefore, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners. If it is found that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have deviated from the sanctioned plan, he shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Till disposal of the representation by respondent No.3, respondent Nos.7 and 8 are permitted to construct the building, strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. In the event, respondent Nos.7 and 8 deviate from the sanctioned plan, respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP Nos.18689 and 18690 of 2009 and WVMP.No.3166 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.04.2011 ES