Telangana High Court
WP/33654/2010 of Pinnamaraju Srinivasa Raju Vs Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, on 31 December 2010
MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.33654 of 2010 DT.31.12.2010 Between: Pinnamaraju Srinivasa Raju … Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad and another … Respondents Counsel for the
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.33654 of 2010
DT.31.12.2010
Between:
Pinnamaraju Srinivasa Raju
And
… Petitioner
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, rep.by itsChairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri Mangena Sri Rama Rao Counsel for respondents: Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni The Court made the following ORDER:
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, who is the owner of premises bearing Door No.4-111 inR.S.Nos.281/6 and 281/7 of Vissakoderu Village, Palakodaru Mandal, WestGodavari District, filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the inactionof respondent No.2 in considering his representation, dated 27.11.2010.
Vide notice, dated 04.10.2010, respondent No.2 has called upon thepetitioner to maintain horizontal and vertical clearances from 132KV EHT linepassing between location Nos.9 and 10. In reply to the said notice, thepetitioner claimed to have submitted his representation, dated 27.11.2010. Thepetitioner apprehends that without considering the said representation andtaking a final decision thereon, respondent No.2 may precipitate action, whichmay result in damage to his property.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.JyothiEswar Gogineni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of theview that before taking further action, respondent No.2 shall consider thepetitioner’s representation, take a decision and communicate the same to thepetitioner. Respondent No.2 is directed accordingly.
Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42652 of 2010filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Date:31.12.2010VGB
(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)