Telangana High Court
WP/26534/2006 of M/s. Sree Sai Constructions, rep by Managing Partner, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.26534 OF 2006 Date: 22-12-2006 Between: M/s Sree Sai Constructions, Rep. By itsManaging Partner, Y.Madan Mohan, son of Venkateswar Rao, Hindu, Aged 36 years, resident of House bearing Door No.9-404/1, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam. …
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.26534 OF 2006
Date: 22-12-2006
Between:
M/s Sree Sai Constructions,Rep. By itsManaging Partner,Y.Madan Mohan, son ofVenkateswar Rao, Hindu,Aged 36 years, resident ofHouse bearing Door No.9-404/1,Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
… Petitioner.
And
Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Commissioner.
… Respondent.
* * *
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:
Heard Sri C.Kodanda Ram, learned counsel representingpetitioner and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counselrepresenting respondent.
2. The matter is coming up for admission today. The writpetition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring action of therespondent in issuing notice under Section 452 of the HyderabadMunicipal Corporation Act, 1955, vide U.C.No.7/06 ACP-II,B.A.No.1044/06/ACP-II, dated 16.11.2006, as illegal and arbitrary and pass such other suitable orders.
3. It is stated that permission for construction of a residentialunit was granted to the petitioner on 04.3.2006 and the respondenton 16.11.2006 issued a notice and the petitioner submitted anexplanation on 14.12.2006. Several factual details are narrated inparagraphs 3 to 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition. It is also stated that a suit in O.S.No.2326 of 2006 on thefile of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam was filed forpermanent injunction restraining the respondent corporation frominterfering with the structures in any manner, except by dueprocess of law.
4. Be that as it may, inasmuch as several factual aspects hadbeen averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition andit is stated that an explanation in detail had been submitted on14.12.2006, this court is of the considered opinion that the writpetition be disposed of directing the respondent to considerobjections raised by the petitioner and take a decision inaccordance with law and it is needless to say that till a decision istaken in this regard, statusquo obtaining as on today to bemaintained.
5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Noorder as to costs.
Date: 22[nd] December 2006.
__________________
P.S.NARAYANA, J.
Note:
Issue operative portionof the order by wireat party’s costs. //B.O.//BSB