P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) ONE Sri Atluri Pursushotham, the Writ petitioner in W. P. No. 15716 of 2004 had set the law into motion by questioning G. O. Ms. No. 33 M. A. , Municipal Administration and urban Development (M2) Department, dated 3-2-2001 and also sanctioned plan issued by respondent No. 1. The 1st respondent is vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri urban Development Authority, and the 2nd respondent is Vijayawada Municipal corporation. Respondents No. 3 to 5 are the parties who obtained the sanctioned plan. Respondent No. 6 is Government of Andhra pradesh, represented by Secretary Municipal administration.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner had prayed for a relief of Writ of Mandamus declaring the g. O. Ms. No. 33 MA, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M2) Department, dated 3-2-2001, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A. P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and the Hyderabad municipal Corporations Act, 1955, A. P. Fire services Act, 1999 and A. P. Apartments Act, 1987 and the rules made thereunder and further declare that the plan sanctioned by the 1st Respondent Vide File NO. RC C2/ 906/04 and permit bearing B. P. No. 121/4/ vja, dated 29-7-2004 as illegal and further direct the Respondents not to make or allow to make as the case may be any constructions in the premises bearing No. 45-1-3/2, gunadala, Vijayawada, without maintaining the minimum set backs of four metres around the proposed building of the Respondents 3 to 5 herein and obtaining NOG from the 7th respondent and to pass such other orders in the circumstances of the case.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 3 to 5 herein filed Writ petition No. 22354 of 2004 praying for issuance of writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings no. R. C. C2-906 dated 23-9-2004, through which the writ petitioners building permission was cancelled, as violativeofg. O. Ms. No. 423 ma dated 31-7-1998 and also violative of g. O. Ms. No. 33 MA dated 3-2-2002, and also violative of G. O. Ms. No. 484 MA dated 1 -11 -2002, and also violative of Principles of Natural Justice and also violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of india and to pass such other order in the circumstances of the case.

( 4 ) THE writ petitioner in W. P. No. 15716 of 2004 was impleaded as Respondent No. 3 in writ Petition No. 22354 of 2004 and this writ petition is filed as against Respondent no. 1 and 2, Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali- mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, and Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, (for the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to as arrayed in Writ Petition no. 15716 of 2004) Since, the parties are virtually the same and the questions involved also being common, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

( 5 ) IT may be relevant to note that initially writ Petition No. 15716 of 2004 was disposed of on 23-9-2004. But, however, the same was recalled on 3-12-2004 in Rev. WPMP no. 28402 of 2004 and reliance is placed on the judgment just to show the stand taken by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation at the first instance. It is pertinent to note that the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation had not filed any separate counter affidavit in the present litigation.

( 6 ) SUBMISSIONS OF MR. M. V. DUGRA prasad mr. M. V. Durga Prasad learned counsel representing the writ petitioner in W. P. No. 15716 of 2004 and Respondent No. 3 in writ Petition No. 22354 of 2004 made the following submissions.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel would maintain that though Public Interest is involved, this is a matter where writ petitioner, as neighbour, had questioned the action of the respondents and the neighbour has locus stand/to question the same when the authorities are not acting in accordance with law or there is violation and contravention of the Rules and regulations relating thereto and the statutory provisions. The learned counsel also would submit that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document