IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9773 of 2009 Between: P.G.V. Ramana Raju & another. ..... Petitioners AND Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri N. Ranga Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9773 of 2009 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in seeking to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners by addressing letter dated 30.11.2006 to respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. I have heard Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, respondent No.1. The petitioners obtained sanction plan from respondent No.1 for construction of a commercial complex with ground and two upper floors. As per the regulations in force, the petitioners have submitted bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.3,40,100/- as security against the construction in violation of the sanctioned plan. The petitioners admittedly raised construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan. However, they sought to invoke the benefit of Building Penalization Scheme available under G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 30.12.2007 by making an application. The grievance of the petitioners is that while the said application is pending, respondent No.1 addressed the abovementioned letter to respondent No.2 seeking invocation of the bank guarantee. On behalf of respondent No.1, the Chief City Planner filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has inter alia stated that the petitioners have deviated construction from the sanctioned plan and therefore the impugned letter was addressed to respondent No.2 seeking invocation of the bank guarantee. At the hearing, the learned Standing counsel fairly admitted that the petitioners’ application for regularization under Building Penalization Scheme is pending and therefore even in the absence of an interim order passed by this Court, respondent No.1 has not invoked the bank guarantee. He stated that till the petitioners’ application is disposed of, the bank guarantee will not be invoked. The above submission of the learned Standing counsel is placed on record and the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.12706 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.04.2011 ES