Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and learned counsel for the second respondent. There is no dispute that the second respondent has made unauthorized construction and the application made under G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 30-7-1998 was rejected long back. In that view of the matter, though there is an inter-se dispute between the petitioners on one hand and the second respondent on the other, as the first respondent being a statutory authority has to discharge his duty in implementing its own orders. There cannot be any doubt that the petitioners are justified in approaching this Court to compel the first respondent to discharge his statutory duties. While discharging the duty, the first respondent is, however, has to give effect to the Court orders, if any. Therefore, the first respondent was justified. What is surprising is that though the Civil Court passed orders some time in 1997, it appears, no application to vacate the interim order was moved. Therefore, it would be proper to direct the first respondent to move the Civil Court, immediately bringing to the notice of the Civil Court about the orders passed on 29-6-2000 as well as the judgment of this Court in Advocate General v. State of A.P. As and when such application is moved, it shall be open to the learned IV Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad to pass orders in the interlocutory application or dispose of the suit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when the suit is disposed of, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad shall take necessary action as per the decision of the B.R.S.Disposal Committee, whose decision was communicated in proceedings B.R.S.No.1084/BRS/HO/98, dated 29-6-2000 immediately. If the application for building regularization made by the petitioners is still pending, it may be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law.
