Telangana High Court
WP/28721/2008 of Y.Sharada Vs The Commissioner on 30 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28721 of 2008 Between: Y.Sharada W/o.late Y.Dattatri Verma H.No.1-9-860, Adikmet,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION NO : 28721 of 2008
Between:
Y.Sharada W/o.late Y.Dattatri Verma
H.No.1-9-860, Adikmet, Hyderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. Tank Bund, Hyderabad.
2 Assistant City Planner, Circle 9, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Opp: GPO, Abids, Hyderabad.
3 G.Srikanth S/o.G.Anjaiah
H.No.1-9-859, Adikmet, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue an appropriate order, direction or a writ, more particularlyone in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the inaction of therespondents in not taking any action against the respondent No.3 andallowing him to proceed with the construction as arbitrary and illegal, anddirect the respondent No.1 and 2 to dispose of the application of thispetitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.DEEPAK MISRA
Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SCFOR MCH 1,2,4&6
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writpetition with the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanyingaffidavit, the petitioner herein prays that it is thereforeprayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issuean appropriate order, direction or a writ, more particularlyone in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring that theinaction of the respondents in not taking any actionagainst respondent No.3 and allowing him to proceedwith the construction as arbitrary and illegal and direct therespondent No.1 and 2 to dispose of the application ofthis petitioner and to pass such other order or orders asthis Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the factsand circumstances of the case.”
According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner ofhouse bearing Municipal No.1-9-860 situated at Adikmet, Hyderabad. The 3[rd] respondent, who is her neighbour, is making a newconstruction by dismantling the front portion of his old structure andthe said construction is being made encroaching on the road andattempting to open a door in the land, which is the only way to herhouse, without any permission. The said encroachment on the publicroad will make the road narrow and the opening of a door in the by-lane will lead to much inconvenience. On that, she maderepresentations to the respondents, especially to the 2[nd] respondenton 18.12.2008, and another representation on 24.12.2008 wherein theAdditional Chief City Planner endorsed on the complaint directing theAssistant City Planner, Circle 9 to inspect and report. But, so far, noaction has been initiated. Hence, she filed the present writ petition.
Having heard the submissions made by the learned counselfor the petitioner and the learned standing counsel, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by dispensing with theusual notice to the un-official respondent i.e., 3[rd] respondent.
As the petitioner has submitted several representations, thelatest one of which, is dated 24.12.2008, the respondents are herebydirected to consider the said representation and pass necessaryorders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. Now, as this Court is dispensing with the usual noticeto the 3[rd] respondent, the official respondents may put the 3[rd]respondent on notice and afford an opportunity of personal hearingbefore passing any orders on the said representation. Till such time,the 3[rd] respondent shall not proceed with any further construction.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
rkk
__________
30-12-2008