Advocates. JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This complaint is filed alleging disobedience to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 14532 of 2009, dated 3-6-2009 (Srirama v The commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore and Others) wherein this Court, having regard to the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the BBMP that action will be initiated over the petitioner’s representation, had disposed of the writ petition. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent has filed affidavit of the Assistant Executive Engineer averring that the order passed by this Court has been complied with and steps have been taken by passing order under Section 321(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 on 18-1-2010. 4. In view of the averment made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that there is no willful disobedience to the direction issued by this Court and hence, it is unnecessary to proceed further in the matter. 5. Complaint is dismissed. Respondent is discharged. Writ Petition No.14532 of 2009 (LB-BMP) 03/06/2009 RAM MOHAN REDDY, J. 1. The petitioner’s complaint to the respondents as disclosed in Annexure-F representation dated 19-3-2009 is that an illegal structure is being erected without prior permission or sanction of the respondents under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and therefore sought for intervention which when not responded to, has presented this petition for a writ of mandamus. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied with an order directing the BBMP to consider the representation and take action in accordance with law over the illegal construction being erected. 3. Sri B.V. Muralidhar, learned Counsel for the BBMP submits that the only action that can be initiated over the petitioner’s representation would be with reference to the construction on ascertaining as to whether it has prior permission or otherwise and will not be involved in the private dispute as between the petitioner and the person who is erecting the building. 4. Recording the submission of the learned Counsel, nothing further survives for consideration in this petition and is disposed of fixing two months’ time for compliance.