Telangana High Court
WP/27111/2006 of A.G.Rajender, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, on 28 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.27111 of 2006 Date: 28th December, 2006 Between :- A.G.Rajender and others .. Petitioners And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad rep.by its Commissioner, M.C.H., Hyderabad. .. Respondent 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.27111 of 2006
thDate: 28December, 2006
Between :-
A.G.Rajender and others Petitioners
And
The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,Hyderabad rep.by its Commissioner, M.C.H., Hyderabad.
Respondent
..
..
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANAWrit Petition No.27111 of 2006
-ORDER:
The matter is coming up for admission.
2. Heard Sri T.Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Counselrepresenting the Writ Petitioners and Smt.Jyoti Kiran, thelearned standing Counsel representing the respondent.
3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamussetting aside the impugned noticesNo.0334/CSC/TP7/2005 dated 13-10-2006, 23-10-2006and 24-11-2006 issued by the respondent Corporationwhile declaring the action of the respondent Corporationas illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative ofprinciples of natural justice and pass such other suitableorders.
4. It is stated that the petitioners are the absoluteowners of the premises bearing No.10-2-280/1 videregistered Conveyance Deed No.1162/2002 dated 18-6-2002. It is also stated that petitioners 1 to 3 executed registered Developmental Agreement-cum-General Powerof Attorney No.411/2005, dated 8-2-2005. It is furtherstated that the respondent Corporation grantedpermission for construction vide permit No.91/84/2005 inFile No.0334/CSC/TP7/2005 dated 27-8-2005. It isalso further stated that the Writ Petitioners approached theCivil Court in O.S.No.150/2006 and obtained interim orderin I.A.No.363/2006 on 31-5-2006. It is also further statedthat the respondent Corporation served notice on 13-10-2006 and yet another notice on 23-10-2006. Furtherspecific stand is taken that the petitioners had sent a replyto the notice dated 23-10-2006. The respondentCorporation issued another notice dated 24-11-2006. Several factual details are narrated in the affidavit filed insupport of the Writ Petition. The main grievance of theWrit Petitioners is that without conducting any enquiry andwithout atleast verifying the building in question, theimpugned notice had been sent.
5. As can be seen from the impugned notice, thoughexplanation in detail had been made on 23-10-2006
wherein several aspects had been narrated in paras 1 to12 of the said explanation, evidently without appreciatingthe explanation in proper perspective, it appears thepresent impugned notice had been issued. In view of thesame, the impugned notice is hereby set aside and thematter is remitted to the respondent to consider therepresentation or explanation made by the petitioners andif necessary, the respondent Corporation also to inspectsubject matter of the Writ Petition after putting the WritPetitioners on notice and take appropriate decision in thisregard. Until the exercise is made, status quo as on todayto be maintained. Accordingly, the Writ Petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs.
_________________
Justice P.S.Narayana
28[th] December, 2006
Note:- Operative portion of the order By wire at party’s costs (B/o.smr)