IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4652 of 2009 Between: Majji Rajyalakshmi W/o. Eswar Rao R/o. D.No.11-29-58, SmithStreet, Bhimunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Commissioner. 2 Majji Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late Suryanarayana R/o. D.No.50-85-8, Maduranagar, Visakhapatnam. .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not taking appropriate action against the 2nd respondent and allowing the 2nd respondent in making construction of the apartment contrary to the building rules and by deviating the approved plan, in spite of the representation dt. 12.11.2008 and legal notice dt. 5.12.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate action against the 2nd respondent and restrain from making unauthorized and illegal construction. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of the house bearing Door No.47-7-73, situated near vegetable market, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. It is her case that the 2nd respondent herein who is her neighbour, started construction of an apartment on the eastern side of her property by encroaching into her land without leaving any space between her house and the said apartment in complete deviation of the sanctioned plan. Aggrieved by the same, she made a representation to the 1st respondent on 12.11.2008 requesting him to take necessary action against the illegal constructions. Since there was no response to the said representation, she got issued a legal notice on 5.12.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of receiving the legal notice, there is no response from the 1st respondent and hence this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation and at their request, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Since the only grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of her representation dated 12.11.2008 followed by a legal notice dated 5.12.2008, without going into the merits of the matter, as agreed to by both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent – Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner after giving notice to the affected parties and take necessary action expeditiously. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.6.3.2009