The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to direct municipal authorities to examine and dispose of representations in accordance with the law within a specified time frame under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein, the following prayer is made:

“…to issue a writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents more particularly Respondents No 2 Commissioner in not cancelling the building permission granted to Respondent No.5 dated 30-04-2018 vide Permit No.1- C11/06585/2018 in relation to agriculture land in Sy.No.88A and 88AA situated at Nanakramguda, Hyderabad, inspite of the fact that the said permissions are granted in undivided 1/9th share of agricultural land of Ac.7.32 gts., in which the Petitioners vide Regd. Sale Deed Doc.No.11621/2007 11622/2007 dt.30-08-2007 have bought land admeasuring Ac.0.32 gts., and Ac.0.35 gts., both in Sy.No.88/1 part (excluding land acquired by HUDA for Outer Ring Road) of which 1st Petitioner’s share (50%) has been attached (0.16 gts., in Doc.No.11621/2007 and 0.17½ gts., in Doc.No.11622/2007) vide attachment orders in Crl.M.P.No.189/2012 in Crl.M.P.No.460/2010 in Crime No 23/ACB-Crime-II/2008 of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases dt.19-12-2012 and the said land being also subject to Land Acquisition Proceedings for a total extent of Ac.2.22 gts., vide Lr.No.LA/32/Unit V/ORR/2005, dt. 21-06-2006 of Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit V, ORR, Tarnaka, Hyderabad for an extent of Ac.2.22 gts., in Sy.No.88 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Petitioners rights under Article 14, 21 and 300-A Constitution of India and to consequently cancel the building permission granted to Respondent No.5 dt. 30-04-2018 in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development representing respondent No1; Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3; learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent No.4; Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the municipal authorities have erroneously granted building permission to the respondent No.5 over the subject premises vide Permit No.1- C11/06585/2018, dated 30.04.2018. A civil dispute is pending in relation to the subject land. Further, the subject land is covered by Court attachment order. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation, dated 18.05.2021, to respondent No.2/Commissioner, GHMC, requesting to cancel the building permission granted to the unofficial respondent No.5 over the subject premises by incorporating all the factual aspects. The respondent No.2, vide letter No.07.06.2021, sought documentary evidence in support of the representation, dated 18.05.2021, of the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter, dated 14.06.2021, submitted relevant documentary evidence to respondent No.2 and the same was acknowledged by the respondent No.2 on the same date. However, no orders have been passed by the 2nd respondent yet on the representation, dated 18.05.2021, submitted by the petitioner. Having made the above submissions, the learned counsel ultimately made a prayer to this Court to direct the municipal authorities to examine and dispose of the representation, dated 18.05.2021, in accordance with law.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5 opposed the relief sought in this writ petition and vehemently contended that the petitioner filed the instant writ petition by concealing the material facts. The municipal authorities granted building permission to the unofficial respondent No.5 in strict accordance with the rules and regulations and as such, the same cannot be cancelled. Further, the averments in the representation, dated 18.05.2021, are frivolous, prima facie incorrect and cannot be acted upon. There are no