IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3666 of 2008 Between: Naseeruddin khan S/o.Late Hameeduddin khan R/o.H. no.1-8-310, Pattigadda Road No.1 Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner and Special officer, Tank bund Road Hyderabad 2 The Additional Commissioner GHMC, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad 3 K.C.Reddy S/o. not know to the petitioner R/o.1-8-309,309/1 and 309/2 Road No.1, Pattigadda, 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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in taking appropriate action on the multiple representations of the petitioner sent through E.Mail complaining about the unauthorised and illegal, constructions being put by the 3rd respondent at premises Door No.1-8-309-209/1 309/2 pattigadda Road No.1,Secunderabad as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and Hyderabad Revised Building Rules 2006 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action as per law in relations to the said constructions and effect demolition of the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 3666 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Naseeruddin Khan complaining inaction of Respondents No.1 and 2 on the representations filed by him with regard to the unauthorized constructions being made by K.C. Reddy- 3rd Respondent. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance through their standing counsel and whereas Respondent NO.3 entered appearance through a counsel. 3 . It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 3rd Respondent is proceeding with the constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan. According to the petitioner, the constructions made by the 3rd Respondent is in utter violation of the sanctioned plan. He submitted representations to the respondents NO.1 and 2 complaining the unauthorized construction. There being no action on his representation, he approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents NO.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for Respondent N.3. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent submitted application under ‘Building Penalization Scheme’ which is pending for consideration. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner along with the application under ‘Building Penalization Scheme’ filed by the 3rd Respondent and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 21st July, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 3666 OF 2008 21st July, 2008.