MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ appeal, the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition no. 14216 of 1999 on 31-8-2001 and the consequential order made on 12-9-2001 are assailed on various grounds.

( 2 ) BEFORE we proceed to examine the main contentions raised by the learned senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the Counsel for the respondents 1 to 21 who are the principal contestants in this writ appeal, certain important factors which are relevant for the purpose of appreciating the genesis of the dispute between the appellant and the respondents 1 to 21 which led to filing of the "writ Petition No. 14216 of 1999 by the respondents 1 to 21 against the appellant are traced hereunder:

( 3 ) WRIT Petition No. 14216 of 1999 was filed by respondents 1 to 21 herein initially against three respondents. However, by an order of the learned single Judge dated 24-8-2001, Government of Andhra pradesh, represented by its Principal secretary, Municipal Administration and urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad was impleaded as 4th respondent in the writ petition.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the respondents 1 to 21 who are writ petitioners in WP no. 14216 of 1999 that the first petitioner association is a society of resident owners of Saphire Complex, Amrutha Hills, panjagutta, Hyderabad registered under the A. P. (T. A.) Public Societies Registration act, 1357 Fasli with Registration No. 3005 of 1990. According to the first petitioner in the writ petition, the Saphire Complex was constructed by the appellant-second respondent who is the promoter. The appellant-second respondent seems to have represented to all the writ petitioners that it had obtained necessary permission from all concerned to construct the building and offered to construct and sell apartments as per the specifications and plans and brochure issued by it. The Saphire complex construction was undertaken from the year 1988 onwards and after collecting necessary payments from the individual purchasers, flats were also delivered to writ petitioners 1 to 21 during the year 1990 onwards and sale deeds were also executed thereafter.

( 5 ) IT is the complaint of the respondents/writ petitioners 1 to 21 that the appellant failed to provide basic amenities as promised by it which includes provisions for water supply. According to them, the appellant constructed sub-cellar (stilt), cellar, ground floor plus three upper floors with 101 residential apartments. It is complained that the appellant-second respondent converted the entire sub-cellar (stilt) and cellar earmarked for parking into commercial purpose even after collecting amounts for covered parking (garage) from the flat owners and gave 2/3rd of the same to the brother of its Managing Partner namely dr. Y. Chiranjeeva Reddy who has been running a hospital by name Amrutha Diabetic clinic on profit sharing basis. The remaining part is either sold or let out and is being used for commercial establishments like shops and officers etc.

( 6 ) IT is the case of the respondents/ writ Petitioners 1 to 21 that the appellant/ second respondent maintained the complex for some period in the year 1990 and started collecting huge amount from the residents and went on making illegal constructions even after delivery of flats to the members- owners. Thereafter, the appellant/second respondent raised pillars of the staircase for about 40 feet height above the third floor with four slabs on the top of which it constructed a water tank, without making any provision for supply of water. The flat owners resisted such a move of the appellant and formed the association in the year 1990 and took over the possession of all common areas and amenities including terrace. The writ petitioners also complained about the various irregularities committed by the appellant/second respondent and the manner in which it started creating problems to the flat owners despite collecting substantial sum of more than six lakhs from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document