ORDER : Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri A. Jagannadha Rao, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, apart from perusing the entire material available on record. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and the same is engaged in the business of construction of buildings in and around Visakhapatnam and, as a part of the business, petitioner-firm entered into a registered Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney vide document No.47/2021, dated 02.01.202l, with one Sri Charakam Satyanarayana, Smt. Toorubilli Lakshmi and her sons Nagu, Sanyasi Rao, Sreenu and one Bondala Eswara Rao along with his wife Smt. Adilakshmi for the purpose of undertaking development and construction of residential flats in respect of the land admeasuring 236.22 Sq.yards in D.No.26-14-77/A/2, 26-14-76 and 26-14-77, Market Ward, Block No.13, Old Ward No.26 and new Ward No.35 in Town Sy.No.452, Karrala Doddi Street, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam-16. It is further stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, that the building permission in respect of the said property was obtained from the respondent-GVMC authorities in the name of one of the landlords vide B.A.No.1086/4514/ B/Z3/VTA2020, dated 17.12.2020, for construction of cellar for parking, Ground + 2 Upper floors. 3. According to the deponent of the writ affidavit, pursuant to the said building permission accorded by the respondent-GVMC authorities, petitioner started construction in the schedule property and completed construction of pillars in the cellar and one staircase. It is further stated that, at the stage of laying of roof for the first floor, respondent-GVMC authorities came to the subject premises, warned the petitioner and its men, and instructed to stall the construction without assigning any reasons. 4. In the above background, alleging highhanded action on the part of the respondent-GVMC authorities, petitioner herein has come up before this Court with the present Writ Petition. 5. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner, as advocated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that so long as the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner herein continues to remain in force, respondent-GVMC authorities have absolutely no power to meddle with the construction activity undertaken in the subject premises of the petitioner herein. 6. 6. On the other hand, strongly resisting the Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner herein, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the building application was submitted through online and the permission came to be accorded by the respondent-GVMC authorities on 17.12.2020 subject to certain conditions enumerated in the said permission. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel that the subject building permission was submitted through licensed technical person, one Sri K. Naveen Kumar (Engineer). It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that, on 03.10.2021, respondent-GVMC authorities issued a notice to the said licensed technical person asking and instructing him to produce ownership documents pertaining to the subject properties and also indicating that the drawing plans submitted do not show the front setbacks. 7. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the said notice came to be issued by the respondent-GVMC authorities, strictly in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the building permission in general and condition No.16 in particular. The issuance of the said notice by the respondent-GVMC authorities, however, after filing the present Writ Petition, on 03.10.2021, is also not disputed by the petitioner herein. Condition Nos.1 and 16 of the Conditions mentioned in the building permission, dated 17.12.2020, read as under: “1. The permission accorded does not confer any ownership rights. The permission will be revoked at later stage. If it is found that the documents or information are false and fabricated. 16. The permission is given based on the inputs on pages, documents and drawing provided by Applicant. Applicant confirms that that the documents/drawings submitted electronically or inputs by them are correct. The final approvals of proceedings are subjected to verification of reports and documents by concerned official including site visit report. Any deviation identified will lead to modification/rejection of the proceedings”. 8. Applicant confirms that that the documents/drawings submitted electronically or inputs by them are correct. The final approvals of proceedings are subjected to verification of reports and documents by concerned official including site visit report. Any deviation identified will lead to modification/rejection of the proceedings”. 8. In view of the above and taking into consideration the subsequent developments and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, leaving it open for the petitioner/their licensed technical person to submit the documents/information sought by the respondent-GVMC authorities vide notice, dated 03.10.2021, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and for consideration of the same by the respondent-GVMC authorities and for passing appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.