Telangana High Court
WP/32352/2014 of R.N.Reddy Colony Welfare Association Vs The Government of Telanagana on 29 December 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENW NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO: 32352 OF 2014 Between: AND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. R.N.Reddy Colony Welfare Association,
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENW NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRIT PETITION NO: 32352 OF 2014
Between:
R.N.Reddy Colony Welfare Association, rep by lts President, T.HanumanthaRao, S/o late Brahmaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ Retd Ernployee,H.No.14-46, R.N.Reddy Colony, Meerpet, Grampanchayat Meerpet,Saroorangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.The Government of Telangana, rep by its Prl. Secretary, Panchayat RajDepartment, Secretariat, HyderabadDepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad2.The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad.
3.The Districi Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District 2nd Floor, PISGAComplex, Nampally, Hyderabad.Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.4.The Meerpet Grampanchayat, rep by its Executive Officer, MeerpetGrampanchayat, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.Grampanchayat, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.5.Ravula Srinivas, S/o late Shankariah, aged about 42 yearc, Occ Business,Plot No.106, B.N.Reddy Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District.Plot No.106, B.N.Reddy Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District.
...RESPONOENTS
Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature ofwrit of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No.2 to 4 in nottaking action against the Respondent No.S for his unauthorised construction inPlot Nos.'154 and 155 situated at R.N.Reddy Colony, Meerpet Grampanchayat,saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District, which is against the permission dated3-9-201 3 by the [ztth ]respondent and the [provisions ]of section 121 of theA.P.Panchayatraj Act and but also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution oflndia and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to 4 to take immediate action.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014{WPMP . NO:402142 OF 20141
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased todirect the respondents No.1 to 4 to stop the respondent No.5 from completing theconstruction of unauthorised Cellor + 7 floors over his plot bearing No.154 and155 of R.N.Reddy Colony, Meerpet Grampanchayat, Saroornagar Mandal,R.R.District, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VARA PRASAD RAO (NOT PRESENT)
Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ &
RURAL DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P.RAGHAVENDER REDDY,SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI P.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDyThe Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATHWRIT PETITION No.32352 ot 2Ol4
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:
This petition is coming lor hcaring sincc 2O 14. On L6.12.2O23, when the maltcr was called. there was norepresentation on behalf of the petitioner, and thereforethe matter was directed to be listed today under thecaption "for Dismissal". Even today, when the matter iscalled, there is no representation on behalf of thepetitioner. It seems that Lhe pctitioner is not interested toprosecute this case
2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed forNon-prose cution/default. The re shall be no order as tocosts.
3. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any in thispetition , shall stand closed SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHYAsstsrANT R\ECISTRA\)../SECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To,2.1.one One CC cc to to SRt sRr p.GHANDR1:.E[IA!-iiil;;;;ffi;te p.VARA PRA!4D RAO, Advocare tOpUCI
ropuc]PANCHAYAT
3. One CC to SRI P.RAGHAVENDER REDDI d; FoFi GRAM ropuc]PANCHAYATloPUClloPUCl4.Two CCs to Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court for the5.f.lrl";lr"trnsrna [at Hyderabad ]IOUTI;ffi":r::.ttt.?"FoR [REVENUE' Hish ][court ][for ][the state ][of ][retansana ]at5.f.lrl";lr"trnsrna [at Hyderabad ]IOUTI;ffi":r::.ttt.?"FoR [REVENUE' Hish ][court ][for ][the state ][of ][retansana ]at6.Two CD Copies HIGH COURT
DATED: 2911212023
ORDER
WP.No.32352 of 2014
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
FOR NON-PROSECUTION/DEFAULT,
WITHOUT COSTS
@41i"Quv[%]
/t1 ..e[-j!_ ][' ][-r-,..1,]L'-t_-te.\t-S"i:.cLI\dJ'-? slirt[ )+]
i