IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 3968 of 2004 BETWEEN: 1 Mahesh Kumar, S/o. Bal Mukund Pershad R/o. Flat No.2, Navaneet Villa, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-29 2 Rajender Agarwal, S/o. Suraj Mal Agarwal R/o. Flat No.1, Navaneet Villa, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-29 ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Municipal Commissioner Municipal Complex Building, Liberty Road Tank Bund Road, hyderabad-29 A.P. 2 Assistant City Planner, Circle No.3 M.C.H Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad-29 3 Smt. D. Sangitha Paliwal, W/o. Sanjeev Mittal, R/o. Flat No.5, Navaneet Villa, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-29. ...RESPONDENTS 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 an order or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not taking any action against the complaints made by us on 17-2-2003 and 26-3- 2003 as illegal, arbitrary injustice, contrary to the provisions of Law there under besides violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,19 and 21 of constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.JYOTHI ESWAR GOGINENI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not taking any action against the complaints made by them on 17.02.2003 and 26.03.2003 as illegal, arbitrary. 2. Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 stating that the unauthorized constructions made on 4th and 5th floors in which the petitioners wanted to initiate action against the third respondents, were already regularized in File No.4000/BRS/HO/98 in permit No.130/C3/2000 dated 11.02.2000. Thus, it is stated that the objections were already disposed of and the petitioners have not questioned the said regularization, as such the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 25, 2008 DSK