IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12273 of 2008 Between: Shaik Abood Bin Ali Ramzan, S/o Shaik Ali Ramzan, R/o H. No. 21-2-321 and 21-2-322, situated at Laad Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary to Government Dept. of Municipal Administration, Secretariat, govt of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Syed Hassan Ali Shakeel S/o Syed mahmood Ali R/0 19-2-26/1/A/1/1, Phool Bagh Jahannuma, Hyderbad. 3 The Assistant Town Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No. Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad. 4 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, 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 a Writ, order or direction and more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus" directing the Respondent/Respondent No.1 to dispose off the revision petition bearing No. 23569 M 2006 dated 4-1- 2007 and hear the impleading petition filed in revision petition No. 23569 M. 2006 dated 21-2-2007 and also pass suitable order or orders in the interest of justice. and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.A.ACHUTHANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12273 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Shaik Abood Bin Ali Ramzan assailing the action of the Secretary to the Government, Department of Municipal Administration-1st Respondent in not disposing of the application filed by him seeking his impleadment in the revision filed by Syed Hassan Ali Shakeel-2nd Respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No.1 and learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents 3 and 4. 3. The relief sought for is only a direction to the 1st Respondent to dispose of the impleadment petition filed by the petitioner. 4. The factual aspect of 2nd Respondent filing revision is not in dispute. The petitioner being the neighbour to the 2nd Respondent, who preferred revision, filed petition seeking his impleadment. It appears the impleadment petition is not being considered by the 1st Respondent. 5. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage directing the 1st Respondent to consider the impleadment petition filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, if there is no other impediment, such as status quo order by the Civil Court. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 16th June, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12273 OF 2008 16th JUNE, 2008