ORDER: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. These writ petitions are filed seeking following prayers: W.P.No.34175 of 2014 “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, by declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not taking any action as per law, against the 4th respondent, who erecting illegal construction of 7th floor in House No.5- 1-561/A, Falcon Crest Apartment, besides UTI Bank, Bank Street, Koti, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad, even complaint lodged by the petitioners dated 01-11-2014, which is illegal, improper, arbitrary and violation of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take necessary and proper action on the complaint dated 01-11-2014 as per law by dismantling the illegal construction made by the 4 th respondent and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case and to pass...” W.P. No.36832 of 2014: “…to issue an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 28-11-2014 vide Notice No. 561/1/5/UC/ACP/TPS/C8/GHMC/2014 issued under section 636 of GHMC Act, as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and ultra wires of the rules made under G.O.Ms.No.901, MA, dated 31.12.2007 violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and principles of Natural Justice and to pass....” 2. Heard Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P. No.34175 of 2014 and Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P. No.36832 of 2014 and Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC in both the writ petitions. 3. Since the subject property of both the writ petitions is one the same and the parties are common, both writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. W.P.No.34175 of 2014 is taken up as lead case in so far as facts are concerned. 4. 3. Since the subject property of both the writ petitions is one the same and the parties are common, both writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. W.P.No.34175 of 2014 is taken up as lead case in so far as facts are concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners purchased plot Nos.201, 101 and 103 in Falcon Crest Apartment, near UTI Bank, Bank Street, Koti, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad from respondent No.4 in the year, 2013; that respondent No.4 obtained permission from the GHMC authorities for construction of Ground+2 upper floors, but constructed ground+4 upper floors, totally 6 floors, contrary to the sanctioned plan and the same was regularized vide Proceedings No.BPS/7987/TPS/C8/CZ/GHMC/2008-2013 dated 31.03.2013. Out of 6 floors, cellar is meant for parking and shops have been constructed in the ground floor and due to huge flow of customers, people are facing traffic congestion in the said area. He further submitted that respondent No.4 was illegally raising 7 th floor and that the respondent No.4 is not allowing the owners/occupants of the complex to 7th floor, therefore, petitioners made a representation dated 01.11.2017 to respondent Nos.2 and 3, against the illegal construction being made by respondent No.4, but no action has been taken by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, respondent No.4 has filed an application for regularization of the construction in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015 issued by Municipal Administration & Urban Development (MA&UD) Department, vide application No.2000016109 and the same is pending. He further submitted that as and when the BRS application of respondent No.4 is disposed of, the respondents-Corporation will take further course of action basing on the outcome of the BRS application of respondent No.4. 6. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record. 7. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized/illegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015. 6. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record. 7. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized/illegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 60 days from the date of notification of the said Rules along with 50% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.10,000/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporations, Metropolitan Commissioner in case of HMDA, shall, on scrutiny of applications and inspection of sites, either approve or reject the applications and communicate the same to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications. 8. The Regularization Rules were notified on 02.11.2015, as per which, applications for regularization were to be filed within 60 days from the said notified date and the same were supposed to be processed within a period of six months from the last date of receipt of applications 9. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015 was challenged in WP (PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.10.2016 as under:- “We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to modify the earlier order, and direct that the applications for regularization be processed in accordance with the regularization scheme notified in G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or the other Municipal Corporations in the State of Telangana, after considering the applications for regularization, decide to reject the request for regularization, it is open to them to communicate the orders of rejection to the applicants concerned, and thereafter take action for demolition of the illegal structures in accordance with law. In such of those cases where the GHMC, or the other Municipal Corporations, tentatively decide to regularize the illegal structures, such a decision shall merely be recorded in the file, and shall neither be given effect to nor shall it be communicated to the applicants, pending further orders from this Court.” 10. In such of those cases where the GHMC, or the other Municipal Corporations, tentatively decide to regularize the illegal structures, such a decision shall merely be recorded in the file, and shall neither be given effect to nor shall it be communicated to the applicants, pending further orders from this Court.” 10. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with a batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 28.04.2021, with a direction that the interim order dated 18.10.2016 passed in W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016 shall continue to operate till a decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W.P.(Civil) No.1236 of 2020. 11. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others , 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, viz., K.Ramadas Shenoy Vs. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council , (1974) 2 SCC 506 , Dr. G.N.Khajuria and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority and others , (1995) 5 SCC 762 , M.I. Builders (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu , (1999) 6 SCC 464 , Esha Ekta Apartments Co-Op Housing Society Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai , (2013) 3 SCC (Civil) 89 , Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others, (2021) 10 SCC 1 , Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authority Vs. Maradu Municipality , (2021) 16 SCC 822 , State of Haryana Vs. Satpal , (2023) 6 SCC 643 has issued further directions in addition to the directions given in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures , vide order dated 13.11.2024 in WP(Civil).Nos.295 and 328 of 2023, WP(Criminal).No.162 of 2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically directed that in the event of any application/appeal/revision being filed by the owner or builder against non-issuance of completion certificate or for regularization of unauthorized construction or rectification of deviation, etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided. 12. 12. In the instant case, since the grievance of the petitioners remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS application of respondent No.4, in the light of the aforesaid order dated 28.04.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2013 and its batch, as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya’s case (cited supra), the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (GHMC) are directed to process the application submitted by respondent No.4 for regularization of unauthorized/illegal construction, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the interim order dated 18.06.2016 passed in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2016, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to result of the BRS application filed by respondent No.4, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to take appropriate action to redress the petitioner’s grievance strictly in accordance with law. In view of pendency of BRS application, respondents are directed not to proceed further with the notice dated 28.11.2014 issued under Section 636 of HMC Act. 13. Subject to above directions and observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.