IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15868 of 2008 Between: Smt. Lakshmi Bai W/o.M.Babu Rao H.No.171-391/2/95 Vishnu Nagar Saidabad Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 G.H.M.C Rep.by its Commissioner having its Office at Tank Bund Basheerbagh Hyderabad 2 Smt.Mallamma W/o.Advaiah 171-1-39/1/2/94 Vishnu Nagar Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not removing the unauthorized construction made by the respondent No.2 which is constructed over the premises bearing Municipal No.171-391/2/94 Vishnu Nagar, Saidabad Hyderabad as being arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14 of Construction of India and issue such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.V.V.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt.Lakshmi Bai assailing the action of the 1st respondent in not considering her representation dated 01.07.2008 complaining the unauthorized construction being made by Smt.Mallamma-2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the property bearing H.No.171-391/2/95, Vishnu Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent is neighbour to her. It is her complaint that the 2nd respondent is proceeding with the construction without obtaining permission from the 1st respondent. She submitted a representation on 01.07.2008 to the 1st respondent complaining the unauthorized constructions being made by the 2nd respondent. There being no action on the representation submitted by the petitioner, she approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 23.07.2008. Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel of GHMC received notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. 2nd respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 5. The factual aspect of the petitioner submitting a representation dated 01.07.2008 to the 1st respondent complaining the unauthorized constructions being made by the 2nd respondent is not in dispute. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 01.07.2008 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon after putting the aﬀected party i.e. 2nd respondent on notice. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:26th September, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}