The short grievance of petitioner is against the non-removal

of encroachment despite his representation dated 27.11.2010, a

copy

whereof

is

at

Annexure-G.

Therefore,

petitioner

has

approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to

accomplish the job. After service of notice, the respondents have

entered appearance through their Panel Counsel & oppose the Writ

Petition.

3

2.

A Co-ordinate Judge of this court vide interim order

dated 20.9.2012 had said as under:

<Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent to file an

affidavit over: a) whether the offensive portion of the

building

constructed

by

the

2^nd

respondent

is

dismantled; b) whether the debris in the conservancy

after the dismantling of the property is removed; c)

whether there is free flow of the drainage water in the

conservancy; and d) With what authority 3^rd respondent

shifted the transformer from a location opposite to 2^nd

respondent9s building to the conservancy.

List on 24.09.2012.=

The same Judge subsequently made another direction on 24.9.2012

with the following text:

<Learned counsel for the respondent - CMC files an

affidavit of one Jr. Engineer. Affidavit is taken on

record. The averments do not disclose