Telangana High Court
PIL/402/2012 of M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs The Commissioner, on 31 December 2012
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.402 OF 2012 Dt: 31-12-2012. Between: M.VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY .. PETITIONER AND THE COMMISSIONER GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TANK BUND ROAD, HYDERABAD AND
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSEAND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.402 OF 2012
Dt: 31-12-2012.
Between:
M.VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY .. PETITIONER
AND
THE COMMISSIONERGREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPALCORPORATIONTANK BUND ROAD,HYDERABADAND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSEANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.402 OF 2012
ORDER: (Per THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner under the Public Interestjurisdiction praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to3 to remove cattle field from the locality of Door No.3-4-74/2, maintaining onekilometre radius situated at Lingampally, Kachiguda, Hyderabad forthwithand consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 to give appropriate policeprotection to the petitioner as his life is in danger from respondents 6 and 7.
Heard party-in-person, learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents 1 to 3 and perused the record.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 havefiled their counter affidavit stating that steps have already been taken in thematter in question and no further orders are necessary to be passed in thismatter, which is not controverted by the party-in-person.
Para 3 of the said counter affidavit reads as under:
“ 3. In reply to para 3, it is respectfully submitted thatthe respondents 6 and 7 are doing milk vending business inH.No.3-4-73/55, Lingampally, Kachiguda Station Road,Hyderabad. Upon receipt of the complaint from the petitioner on11.09.2012, the Veterinary Section, Central Zone has issuednotices to the respondents 6 and 7 under Section 407 of GHMCAct, 1955 under Section 510 and 511, since no person shallkeep and tether any animals on his premises so as to be nuisance or danger to any person and stable animals etc. In thisconnection, it is submitted that the respondent 6 is maintaining18 buffaloes and respondent 7 is maintaining two cows and 8buffaloes in premises No.3-4-73/55, Lingampally, KachigudaStation Road, Hyderabad.”
As the respondents 1 to 3 have taken steps under Sections 407, 510 and511 of GHMC Act, 1955, as stated supra, no further orders need to be passedin this Public Interest Litigation.
Accordingly, this Public Interest Litigation is disposed of on the aboveterms. No costs.
Dt: 31-12-2012.
( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, HCJ )
( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J )
TNB