WA/2102/2004 of Smt. K. Prasuna Rao W/o late Shobandri Rao Vs P. Krishna S/o Late P. Varadaiah on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY

WRIT APPEAL NO : 2102 of 2004

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated10/09/2004 in WP NO : 9461 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

Smt. K. Prasuna Rao W/o late Shobandri Rao R/o 37-90, Plot No. 598, Defence Colony, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District

..... APPELLANT

AND

1 P. Krishna S/o Late P. Varadaiah Shop at D. NO. 37-90/1, P. No. 599, Defence Colony, Neredmet XRoads, Malkajgiri Municipality, RR District 2 The Municipal Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad 3 Smt. Y. Nagaratnamma W/o Y. Subba Rao 12-2-37/17, Sriramanagar 4 Smt. Y. Mamata W/o Y. Krishnababu 12-2-37/17, Sriramngar Colony,Medhipatnam, Hyderabad.(Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary in this Writ Appeal)

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.V.MOHAN REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.R.TIMMA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr.Polisetti RadhakrishnaCounsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4: None appeared.

The Court made the following :

ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice)

Heard.

The first respondent filed writ petition questioning the proceedings dated 26[th]April, 2004 of the Municipal Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipality andconsequently sought direction not to demolish the premises in which writ petitionerwas stated to be carrying on business. Interim direction was issued. Appellant is thesecond respondent in the writ petition and applied for vacation. Instead of vacatingthe interim order, learned single Judge passed an order which is now impugned inthe appeal thereby granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Municipalityfor renewal of trade licence. Such an interim order passed is beyond the scope ofthe interim application filed by the writ petitioner as well as of the vacate petitioner-appellant. As a matter of fact, there was no question of even vacating the interimorder. Otherwise, allowing such an application would make the entire writ petitionitself infructuous.

In the facts and circumstances, learned single Judge ought to have continuedthe interim order granted in favour of the writ petitioner with direction to take up thewrit petition at an early date.

Consequently, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and directthat interim order passed on 1-6-2004 shall continue to remain in operation till thedecision of the writ petition. Writ Petition is directed to be taken up for hearing at thSerial No.1 subject to part heard on28Feburary, 2005.

___________________

DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ

30-12-2004

_____________________

M.NARAYANA REDDY, J

tvr

To