Since the issues involved in both these writ petitions are common, they were heard together and being disposed of by a common order.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in WP.No.10781 of 2000.

3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into a development agreement with respondent Nos.2 and 3 for construction of a residential complex on an extent of 800 square yards situated at Gopalakrishnaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada, belonging to respondent Nos.2 and 3. They agreed to share the built up area in the ratio of 60:40 between themselves and respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively. As constructions were made in deviation of the sanctioned plan, an application for regularization of the deviations was made. While Form-A was submitted on 31.08.1998, Form-B was submitted on 28.10.1998 in the name of respondent No.2 by petitioner No.3 under Building Regulation Scheme as notified under G.O.Ms.No.419, M.A. dated 30.07.1998. Respondent No.1, who considered the said application, passed order on 29.10.1999, whereunder the deviations were regularized. Later, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 15.02.2000 purportedly under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') addressed to petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 calling upon them to stop all further actions in pursuance of the regularization and also to show cause in writing by themselves or their duly authorized agent why order dated 28.10.1999 should not be cancelled. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand and respondent No.2 on the other sent their respective representations to the said notice. While petitioner Nos.1 and 2 pleaded that there was no misrepresentation or fraud, respondent No.2 requested for cancellation of regularization order. After considering the said representations, respondent No.1 vide his order dated 25.05.2000 cancelled and revoked his earlier order dated 29.10.1999. Assailing the said order, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed WP.No.10781 of 2000.

4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed WP.No.10780 of 2001 for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized constructions made by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 contrary to the sanctioned plan and the provisions of the Act.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed separate sets of counter affidavits.

6. In his counter affidavit, respondent No.1 stated that petitioner No.3 signed Form-A for respondent No.2 and Form-B and indemnity bond in his individual capacity. It is also averred that the indemnity bond, which is shown to have been executed by respondent No.2, was signed by petitioner No.3 and that therefore the same constitutes fraud and misrepresentation and that opposing the application for regularization of deviations, respondent No.2 sent a representation on 13.10.1999 and the same was misplaced. It is further averred that order of regularization of unauthorized deviations was passed on 22.08.1999 itself subject to payment of balance amount, that notice dated 30.08.1999 was issued for payment of balance amount of Rs.38,240/-, which was acknowledged by Sri Dandamudi Venkateswara Rao, watchman of the scheduled premises, on 08.09.1999 and that after remittance of the balance amount of Rs.38,240/- on 28.10.1999, deviations were regularized by order dated 29.10.1999. Respondent No.1 denied that notice dated 15.02.2000 was issued at the instance of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is stated that in his reply to the show cause notice, respondent No.2 questioned the authenticity of the documents submitted by petitioner No.3 and failure of petitioner No.3 to give his explanation gave scope for suspicion about his existence, competency and capacity and that the explanation submitted by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was thoroughly perused before the impugned decision was taken. Respondent No.1 justified cancellation of building permission by invoking Section 450 of the Act as the said provision deals with cancellation/revocation of building permits found to