1 APHC010612572014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28917/2014 Between: Shaikh Yezdani ...PETITIONER AND The Municipal Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipality and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B D MAHESWARA REDDY 2. M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations 3. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 4. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.... to issue a Writ or Order or Direction or especially writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 in not taking action against the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 for raising illegal and unauthorized constructions in the premises adj. Minserva Cinema Hall Gate, M.G.Road, Vizianagaram and in the premises adj. S.V.N. Colour Lab, Opp. Pyditallamma Temple, M.G.Road, Vizianagaram as arbitrary, illegal, improper, unconstitutional …...” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and permanent resident of Mahtab Manzil, M.G.Road, Vizianagaram and is the neighbour of respondent No.6. The unofficial respondents No.5 and 6 are the owners of properties that were previously used for running Sweet India business and APCO cloth store respectively both are situated at M.G.Road, Vizianagaram. The unofficial respondents have demolished the existing structures and started illegal construction of a new shopping building in its place, without obtaining any permission or sanction from the concerned authorities and did not follow the setback norms by leaving 40 feet space from the centre of the road, as per the master plan incorporated in G.O.Ms.No.345, dated 30.06.2006. This G.O. clearly stipulates that the width of the road from S.B.I. to 3 Lamps Junction and D.C.C.B. Bank to Water Tank is 80 feet. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on 15.09.2014 to the respondent No.1, requesting to take action against the illegal constructions made by the unofficial respondents No.4 and 5. However, as no action has been initiated on the said representation till date, the unofficial respondents 3 No.5 and 6 are continuing their illegal constructions. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.2, Mr.V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.4. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1, furnished a copy of the instructions dated 07.02.2025, wherein it is stated that the allegation of unauthorized construction made against respondents No.5 and 6 appears to be motivated by personal grievance rather than factual grounds. It is further stated that the road widening was carried out in the public interest and there is no unauthorized construction raised by the unofficial respondents. 5. As can be seen from the above instructions, though the respondents states that the unofficial respondents No.5 and 6 have not made any unauthorized constructions, it is clear that they have not passed any orders pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner on 15.09.2014. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsels, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing respondent No.1, to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 15.09.2014 and pass appropriate orders, if not yet passed, in 4 accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 12.02.2025 KGR