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 SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21132 of 2008 Between: S.Dadapeer, S/o. Rahmatullah, R/o. Madanapallen Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Madanapalle Municipality, Chittoor District. 2 Balaji Rao, S/o. hanumantha Rao, R/o. H.No.4-400-B/13, Madanapalle Town & Municipality, Chittoor District. .....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 to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not considering and disposing oﬀ the representation dated 15-07- 2008 of the petitioner ﬁled before him for removal of bathroom and lavotary unauthorisedly constructed by 2nd respondent on the dead end of the Anjaneya Swamy Temple street in front of H.NO.4- 400-b/13, Ward No.IV, Madanapalle Municipality and Abutting to the Petitioners plot bearing municipal No.4-100/1, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to remove the said encroachments and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by S.Dadapeer assailing the inaction of the Commissioner, Madanapalle M unicipality, Chittoor District-1st respondent on his representation dated 15.07.2008 complaining unauthorized constructions made by the 2nd respondent on the road portion. The petitioner claims to be the owner of plot admeasuring Ac.0-07 cents bearing Municipal No.4-100/1, situated at Ward No.IV in Madanapalle Municipality. The 2 nd respondent allegedly put up constructions on the road portion. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 1st respondent complaining illegal constructions made by the 2nd respondent. Since his representation remained unattended, he approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri S.I.Newton received notice on behalf of the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of his representation before the 1st respondent. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 23.7.2008 and pass appropriate orders, after putting on notice the affected party i.e., 2nd respondent. No costs. __________ 26-09-2008 rkk