Smt. P. Bhagyavathi v. The Secunderabad Contonment,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT Writ Petition No.29148 of 2016 ORDER:

Vide present writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for permission of construction on 1st and 2nd floors in Plot No.119 in Sy.No.69/1 and 69/2, Ravi Colony, Tirumalgiri Village.

2. The respondent-Secunderabad Cantonment Board by communication dated 11.03.2016 informed the petitioner that existing building does not match with the plan sanctioned by the Board Vide CBR No.6(08) dated 28.10.2006 and accordingly, asked her to clarify and submit the plan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already filed the building plan sanctioned by the respondent, however, that may not be in the knowledge of the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, who sent communication dated 11.03.2016.

3. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the communication dated 11.03.2016, the petitioner has not made any correspondence with said Officer stating that the documents already filed by her are on record of the Cantonment Board. I note that vide communication dated 20.07.2016, the respondent informed the petitioner that on scrutiny of the application under Section 236 of the cantonment Act, 2006, the notice is found invalid for the reason that the petitioner has not complied with the objections raised vide their office letter dated 11.03.2016 and the petitioner was advised to comply with the observations and re-submit the plan.

4. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not made any correspondence thereafter. However, she filed the present writ petition before this court.

5. In view of the facts recorded above, I am of the view that the present petition is filed prematurely and is liable to be dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Authority and file the documents as sought for vide communication dated 11.03.2016 and 20.07.2016. Needless to state that, if the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision taken by the respondent, she can approach appropriate forum.

6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand dismissed in consequence. _____________________ SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J Date: 30.08.2016 BSS HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT Writ Petition No.29148 of 2016

Date:30.08.2016 BSS