HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 22193 OF 2006 Between: Ch. Ramanaiah ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District & others .....Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri Ch. Ravinder Dated: 27.10.2006 Per G.S.SINGHVI, CJ In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of a declaration that the action of Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District in not taking action against the illegal construction raised by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and not demolishing the wall and tin shed illegally constructed by them on the road at Ampro Colony and D.D. Colony, Lingojiguda, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is illegal. He has further prayed for issue of a mandamus to respondent No.1 to immediately demolish the wall in dispute. We have heard Shri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scrutinized the averments contained in the affidavit of the petitioner. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of his affidavit, the petitioner has averred that he purchased land measuring Ac.1.03 guntas by registered sale deed dated 13.12.2001, out of which 2100 square yards were sold to one Mr. D.R. Kishan and two others through registered sale deeds and the remaining land measuring 2100 square yards is in his possession. In paragraph 5, he has averred that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have constructed a wall in front of his plot (Western side) and thereby blocked the passage to his property. In paragraph 7, he has averred that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have made illegal and unauthorized construction at the disputed site. Shri Ch. Ravinder made strenuous efforts to persuade us to entertain the writ petition and record a finding that the private respondents have raised illegal and unauthorized construction at the site in question and then order demolition of the said construction, but we have not felt persuaded to agree with him. Rather, we are convinced that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason, which are enumerated below: (1) The petitioner has not impleaded L.B. Nagar Municipality as party to the writ petition. The Commissioner, who has been impleaded as party, is merely an officer of the municipality and not the municipality itself, which can sue and be sued in its own name. (2) The petitioner has not produced any tangible evidence to show that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have raised construction without obtaining sanction from the competent authority of the municipality or in violation of the sanctioned plan. Mere making of representation by the petitioner to respondent No.1 complaining about the so- called illegal construction made by the private respondents is not sufficient to take cognizance of the allegation made in the writ petition. In our opinion, the petitioner should have, before filing the writ petition, filed an application to the competent authority of the municipality to supply certified/attested copy of the application, if any, filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for permission to raise construction and also produce some evidence to show that the construction has been raised either without obtaining sanction or in violation of the sanctioned plan. His failure to do so is, in our view, sufficient to non-suit him. (3) For deciding whether respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have made illegal construction, a more effective remedy is available to the petitioner by way of civil suit and in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot decide contentious issue of fact, which requires recording of evidence of the parties. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the petitioner free to avail remedy by filing civil suit. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that the Court may direct municipal authorities to make available the relevant information. In this context, it is sufficient to observe that if the petitioner makes an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the concerned authority of the municipality will be obliged to supply the relevant information and copies of the public documents. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28191 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27.10.2006 ksld