Akilesh Sood, v. The Commissioner,

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE WRIT PETITION No. 17611 OF 2010 07-08-2015 Between:

Akhilesh Sood ... Petitioner And The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank bund, Hyderabad and two others ... Respondent

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE WRIT PETITION No. 17611 OF 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though served.

In the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner made the following prayer:

"For the reasons in the accompanying affidavit, the Petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the application Nos.

1355/C3/E2/2008;

1356/C3/E2/2008;

1357/C3/E2/2008; 1358/C3/E2/2008;

1359/C3/E2/2008; and 1360/C3/E2/2008, received on 26-4-2008 by the office of the GHMC, L.B.Nagar Circle, filed for penalization of unauthorizedly constructed building/building constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan, in respect of the property bearing House No.11-6-111 (since Demolished) on Plot No.4, in Survey No.2, admeasuring 1000 Sq Yards, situated at Ward No.11, Block No.6, Cherukuthota Colony, Saroornagar Village and Revenue Mandal, under L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules in vogue and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice." On 02-08-2010, this Court while admitting the writ petition passed the following order on WPMP No. 22248 of 2010:

"Notice.

There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioner for penalisation of the buildings in question and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state whether the petitioner's applications as prayed for in the prayer clause and as directed by order dated 02-08-2010 have been decided or not. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that this writ petition need not remain pending and can be conveniently disposed of by the following order: "If the petitioner's applications as per the order dated 02-08-2010 and as prayed for in the writ petition have not been considered and decided, the concerned authority may decide the same on merits in accordance with law and shall communicate their order to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of the order."

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ 07-08-2015 ks