ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 4th respondent and Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, and perused the record. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to remove/demolish the unauthorized construction made by the 5th respondent in deviation of the sanctioned plan including construction of flats on the 6th floor of the building named as ‘Mehar Homes’ situated at Cherukuthota Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District and also closing the public drain existing on the rear side of the building for the purpose of providing parking and also watchman room thereby violating the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. Petitioner further contends that it is an Association of Flat Owners of Mehar Homes; that the 5th respondent while offering the aforesaid flats for sale, had represented to the petitioner that he would be making construction of building consisting of Ground + 4 upper floors basing on permission granted by the 4th respondent authority dated 08-06-2004 viz., total 5 floors; and that the 5th respondent in deviation of the aforesaid sanctioned plan, had made construction of one additional floor viz., 6th floor and also made flats therein. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the respondent authorities initiating action by issuing notice under Section 636 of the Act, the unofficial respondent had approached this Court and filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.16938 of 2008 seeking to quash the said notice issued by the respondent authorities. 5. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the respondent authorities initiating action by issuing notice under Section 636 of the Act, the unofficial respondent had approached this Court and filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.16938 of 2008 seeking to quash the said notice issued by the respondent authorities. 5. Petitioner further contends that the aforesaid Writ Petition filed by the unofficial respondent was disposed of on 14-07-2011, whereby this Court taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the Writ petitioner therein (5th respondent herein) that the application made by it for regularization of unauthorized construction under Building Penalization Scheme, 2008 (BPS) be examined by the concerned authorities and if it is found that the structures raised by the unofficial respondent qualify for regularization, the authorities shall pass an order for regularization, and conversely, if it is found that the said structures cannot be regularized under the BPS, the authorities shall pass an appropriate order and take suitable action for removal of such unauthorized structures after following procedure prescribed by law and the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order. 6. Petitioner contends that the unofficial respondent had once again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition vide W.P.No.17611 of 2010 seeking for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the application made by it for penalization of unauthorizedly constructed building in deviation of the sanctioned plan and initially obtained interim order on 02-08-2010; and that the aforesaid Writ Petition filed by the unofficial respondent was also disposed of by this Court on 07-08-2015. 7. It is further contended that though the unofficial respondent and the respondent authorities by the counter-affidavit filed claim that the application made by the unofficial respondent under BPS is pending, except stating that the same is pending, no details are forthcoming. 8. It is also contended that even assuming that the unofficial respondent had made an application seeking regularization of the unauthorizedly constructed floor under the BPS introduced vide G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31-12-2007, the authority did not take any action thereon till date and even otherwise the regularization of unauthorized construction made must be strictly in accordance with the G.O. 9. 8. It is also contended that even assuming that the unofficial respondent had made an application seeking regularization of the unauthorizedly constructed floor under the BPS introduced vide G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31-12-2007, the authority did not take any action thereon till date and even otherwise the regularization of unauthorized construction made must be strictly in accordance with the G.O. 9. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 4th respondent submits that no relief is sought against the said respondent and the authorities on granting the building permission, have transferred the file to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for its enforcement. 10. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and separate counter-affidavit on behalf of unofficial respondent is filed. 11. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 by the counter-affidavit filed on 14-02-2022 submit that G.O.Ms.No.901, M.A. dated 31-12-2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 31-01-2008 is applicable only for buildings and structures made on or before 15-12-2007, and since the unofficial respondent had started construction of additional floor after the cut-off date, the said Scheme viz., BPS as introduced vide G.O.Ms.No.901 is not applicable; and that the unofficial respondent is not entitled to seek regularization / penalization of the aforesaid unauthorized construction. 12. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that the respondent authorities have issued show cause notice dated 18-06-2008 under Section 452 of the Act and since no reply is received from the unofficial respondent, the authorities have issued final notice dated 26-07-2008 under Section 636 of the Act directing the unofficial respondent to remove the additional floor within 24 hours, upon which the unofficial respondent had approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.16938 of 2008. 13. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 further submit that the unofficial respondent, by suppressing the fact of filing of the present Writ Petition, had filed one more Writ Petition vide W.P.No.17611 of 2010 seeking to declare the action of respondent/GHMC in not considering the application filed by it for penalization of unauthorizedly constructed building in deviation of the sanction plan in the subject property as illegal, and that the respondent authorities could not take further action on account of pendency of two Writ Petitions filed by the unofficial respondent. 14. By stating as above, respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the respondent-Corporation has discharged its duties lawfully by following due process of law. 15. 14. By stating as above, respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the respondent-Corporation has discharged its duties lawfully by following due process of law. 15. Counter-affidavit on behalf of 5th respondent is filed. By the counter-affidavit, the 5th respondent while admitting to the fact of constructing additional floor, claimed that it had sought for availing the benefit of regularization as contemplated under BPS and is in fond hope that the aforesaid application would be considered as the unofficial respondent had complied with all the requirements under the BPS. 16. I have taken note of respective contentions urged. 17. Though, the respondent authorities by the counter-affidavit filed into this Court on 14-02-2022 deposed to by the 3rd respondent, as late as in February, 2022 claim that on account of pendency of two Writ Petitions filed by the unofficial respondent, the authorities being prevented from taking any action on the unauthorizedly constructed additional floor by the unofficial respondent, it is to be noted that the aforesaid two Writ Petitions mentioned by the respondent authorities in their counter-affidavit have been disposed of by this Court by order dated 14-07-2011 and 07-08-2015. Thus, the statement made by the respondent authorities by their counter-affidavit only goes to show that respondent authorities had made the aforesaid statement on oath without even verifying their record and only to cover up their inaction. 18. Further, the respondent authorities while admitting to the fact of the unofficial respondent making application seeking for regularization of the construction of additional floor while claiming that the aforesaid application made by the unofficial respondent cannot be regularized as the subject construction having been made after the cut-off date mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.901 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.112, ought not to have kept the aforesaid application filed by the unofficial respondent pending and were required to pass orders thereon and communicate the same to the unofficial respondent, thereby enabling them to take further action on the unauthorized and illegal construction of additional floor made by the unofficial respondent by exercising power under Section 636 of the Act. Unfortunately, the respondent authorities have not only taken any action on the application filed by the unofficial respondent with regard to the construction of additional floor seeking to avail the benefit of BPS and on the other hand, took shelter of the pendency of the Writ Petitions, even as late as in February, 2022. 19. Unfortunately, the respondent authorities have not only taken any action on the application filed by the unofficial respondent with regard to the construction of additional floor seeking to avail the benefit of BPS and on the other hand, took shelter of the pendency of the Writ Petitions, even as late as in February, 2022. 19. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities in particular respondent Nos.2 and 3 authority are required to take action to deal with the unauthorized construction of additional floor by the 5th respondent inasmuch as there is no impediment restraining the authorities from taking steps by exercising powers conferred on them under the Act. 20. Further, in the event the application filed by the unofficial respondent seeking regularization of the construction made in deviation of the sanctioned plan is pending, the authorities are required to dispose of the same, having admitted to the fact that the said application cannot be considered as the construction having been made after the cut-off date, by passing an order thereon, which the authorities as noted above, failed to do so. 21. Thus, considered from any angle, the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in dealing with the unauthorized construction cannot be condoned. 22. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be directed to take further action on the construction of additional floor made by the unofficial respondent in premises viz., Meher Home, Cherukuthota Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District in an expeditious manner in terms of the provisions of the Act. 23. Subject to above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 24. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.