ORDER Sri Ramanjaneya Gowda, learned panel Counsel for the respondent 1 to accept notice and file vakalath within a period of four weeks. Considering the nature of the prayer made in the petition and the manner of disposal, notice to respondent 2 is unnecessary. 2. The petitioner is before this Court for issue of mandamus to the respondent 1 to initiate action and ensure that the building in the schedule premises is built in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The case put forth by the petitioner is that the respondent 2 is the owner of the adjacent property bearing site No. 28, wherein respondent 2 is putting up construction. In this regard, though initially he was given the impression that the construction was being put up in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the plan obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, reveals that respondent 2 infact had violated the sanction obtained from the respondent 1. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have filed a representation dated 16-6-2009 initially and since no action had been initiated, a suit was filed before the Civil Court. Though the ad interim injunction was granted, the Trial Court while vacating the injunction order has also observed in the course of the order that the construction to be put up should be in accordance with the sanctioned plan and even if there are violation, it is for the authorities to initiate appropriate action keeping in view the enactment, such as building bye-laws and rules, since the same also provides for compounding, if there is deviation within the permissible limit. In view of the same, the petitioner has thereafter made one more representation dated 11-3-2010 to respondent 1, which is at Annexure-F to the petition and the acknowledgment is produced at Annexure-G. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said representation, no action has been initiated by the respondent 1 and therefore the respondent 1 be commanded to act in accordance with law. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent 1 would state that from the very petition averments, it is seen that the petitioner had filed a suit earlier and therefore the petitioner cannot make out any grievance with regard to the earlier inaction alleged against the respondent 1. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent 1 would state that from the very petition averments, it is seen that the petitioner had filed a suit earlier and therefore the petitioner cannot make out any grievance with regard to the earlier inaction alleged against the respondent 1. However, with regard to the construction to be put up in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the building bye-laws, the officers of the respondent 1 would look into the matter keeping in view the statutory provision and thereafter if there is any violation, which is contrary to same, appropriate action in accordance with law would be initiated. 4. In the light of the above, the only direction to be issued in this petition is to direct the respondent 1 to take note of the representation dated 11-3-2010 as at Annexure-F, notify the respondent 2 herein, call for the details and if the construction is contrary to the sanctioned plan or the building bye-laws, the respondent 1 shall thereafter initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that before taking any such action, all opportunity shall be provided to the respondent 2 in strict compliance of principle of natural justice and also the statutory provisions under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. 5. In order to hasten the process, the petitioner is directed to file one more copy of the representation as at Annexure-F along with the certified copy of this order with the respondent 1 within one week from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent 1 shall thereafter take appropriate action, in accordance with law, in the manner stated above and intimate the petitioner one way or the other within a period of ten days thereafter. If during the course of inquiry by the respondent 1, any action in accordance with law against the respondent 2 is required, the same shall also be taken by the respondent 1 and be intimated to the petitioner. 6. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.