THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 28381 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 1 and 2 in not taking action on the representation dated 26.09.2011 submitted by the petitioner to stop the unauthorized construction made by the 3rd respondent to the Western side of his house bearing Municipal No. 1-3-83, Behind Ramalayam Temple, Old Alwal, Secunderabad as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the above said property by virtue of inheritance. It is alleged that the 3rd respondent, who is a neighbour on the Western side, is making constructions unauthorizedly. Noticing the same, he made a representation dated 26.09.2011 to Respondents 1 and 2, but no action has been taken thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner made a representation to Respondents 1 and 2 bringing to their notice the illegal constructions, they have not taken any action. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 submits that a notice under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 has been issued to the 3rd respondent, but so far, no explanation was received from him, therefore, appropriate decision will be taken by Respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 submits that in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 452 of the Act, an explanation has been given and no action has been initiated, therefore, it is deemed that notice issued by the Municipal Corporation is withdrawn. The contention of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent cannot be accepted, because Respondents 1 and 2 have to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law on the representation made by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is not supposed to make any constructions illegally or unauthorizedly. For that purpose, Respondents 1 and 2 have to inspect the premises in question and verify whether the constructions are in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not. In view of the fact that Respondents 1 and 2 have already initiated proceedings under Section 452 of the Act, appropriate decision has to be taken by Respondents 1 and 2. If Respondents 1 and 2 have received any explanation from the 3rd respondent, they have to pass appropriate orders in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 452 of the Act. If no such explanation was given, the 3rd respondent is directed to give the explanation. Thereafter, Respondents 1 and 2 shall take appropriate decision, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the 3rd respondent. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. --------------------- (K.C. BHANU, J) 14th November 2011 ksld