Telangana High Court
WP/26875/2006 of V.Krishana, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, on 26 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.26875 of 2006 Date: 26th December, 2006 Between :- V.Krishna and others .. Petitioners And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. By its Commissioner, Tank Bund road, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ
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 SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
Writ Petition No.26875 of 2006
thDate: 26December, 2006
Between :-
V.Krishna and others
Petitioners
AndThe Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,Rep. By its Commissioner, Tank Bund road, Hyderabad and another Respondents ..
..
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANAWrit Petition No.26875 of 2006
-ORDER:
The matter is coming up for admission.
2. Smt. Jyoti Kiran, the learned standing Counseltakes notice on behalf of respondents.
3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents as illegal, highhandedness, arbitrary and in violation of principles ofnatural justice in issuing the noticeNo.82/UC/W8/SD/MC/2003 dt.22-12-2006 and set asidethe same and pass such other suitable orders.
4. It is stated that the mother of the petitioners was theowner of the premises bearing No.8-3-29/35 admeasuring83 square yards and she obtained building permission forconstruction of the Ground + 2 floors on 27-1-2001. It isalso stated that even though there is no necessity toobtain permission for the area below 100 square yards,her mother obtained permission for the purpose ofobtaining house loan. It is also stated that not only thepetitioners, the petitioners’ neighbour and the members ofthe colony had constructed their respective buildingsGround + 2 upper portions without any specific buildingpermission as their respective plot areas are below 100
sq.mts. It is further stated that at the instance ofpetitioners’ neighbour, the respondent-Corporation issuednotice dated 22-12-2006 to show cause withinthree days as to why the unauthorized construction of thepetitioners not to be demolished. The said notice wasserved on 22-12-2006. Several other factual details arealso narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the WritPetition.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court isof the considered opinion that the impugned notice, whichis issued, to be treated as show-cause notice and thepetitioners are given liberty to raise objections to theimpugned notice within a period of two weeks and therespondents to consider such objections which would beraised by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders inthis regard and till the further action is taken, status quo ason today to be maintained.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Noorder as to costs.
________________
Justice P.S.Narayana
26[th] December, 2006
NOTE:- Operative portion of the order
by wire at party’s costs.
(B/o.smr)