O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

“...to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in granting permission to Respondent No.5 by vide proceedings L.Dis.No.12514/A1/2013 dated 27.11.2013 for running the school in the name of Nobel High School/Nobel Techno School and the consequential provisional recognition issued vide Proceedings L.Dis.No.5879/A1/2014 dt.12.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools Under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 vide G.O.Ms.No.l Education (P.S.2) dated 1-1-1994 r/w A.P. Education Act, 1982 and consequently set aside the same and pass...”

02. Heard Sri Srinivas Chaturvedula, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. A. Santhosh Kumari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3; Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation; Sri K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.5; and Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. Perused the material on record.

When the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, on instructions, has placed before this Court written instructions along with proceedings vide Rc.No.2080/A3/2024 dated 16.04.2026, stating that the District Educational Officer, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, has already initiated action against the respondent No.5-school. In view of the said development, it is contended that the grievance of the petitioner no longer survives and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. She accordingly prayed for closure of the Writ Petition.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.5 has allegedly raised construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan, namely, construction of G+3 floors with a pent house, as against the permission for only G+2 floors, without obtaining necessary approval from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. It is further contended that such unauthorized construction affects the petitioner’s right to life with dignity, placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v Union Of India, 1978 AIR 597.

04. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation submitted that, if there is any unauthorized construction, the Corporation would examine the same and take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law. He left the matter to the discretion of this Court to pass appropriate orders.

05. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 opposed the Writ Petition, contending that the respondent No.5 is only a lessee of the premises belonging to the respondent No.6 and has been running the school for the past 18 years after obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authorities. It is further contended that there are civil disputes between the parties, and that the respondent No.5 has already obtained an order of injunction against the petitioner’s son, which has attained finality. On that ground, it is submitted that the petitioner lacks locus standi to maintain the present Writ Petition.

06. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, the principal grievance of the petitioner relates to alleged irregularities in functioning of the respondent No.5-school and purported unauthorized construction. Insofar as the issue relating to the functioning of the school is concerned, the competent authority, i.e. the District Educational Officer, has already initiated action, as evidenced by the proceedings dated 16.04.2026. Therefore, to that extent, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive.

07. With regard to the allegation of unauthorized construction, this Court is of the opinion