Telangana High Court
WP/27440/2009 of Kalluri Veera Venkata Rama Rao Vs The Guntur Municipal Corporation, on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.27423, 27440 and 27449 of 2009 W.P.No.27423 of 2009: Between: Nalam Rakesh ... PETITIONER(S) and The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, rep. by its Commissioner …RESPONDENT(S)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THIS THE 29[th] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009
W.P.No.27423, 27440 and 27449 of 2009
W.P.No.27423 of 2009:
Between:
Nalam Rakesh
and
... PETITIONER(S)
The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, rep. by its Commissioner …RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.27440 of 2009:
Between:
Kalluri Veera Venkata Rama Rao
and
... PETITIONER(S)
The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, rep. by its Commissioner …RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.27449 of 2009:
Between:
Kalluri Varalakshmi
and
... PETITIONER(S)
The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, rep. by its Commissioner …RESPONDENT(S)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYW.P.No.27423, 27440 and 27449 of 2009
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.
COMMON ORDER:
Petitioners in all these writ petitions claim to be owners ofvarious sites in T.S.No.673/3 of Sampath Nagar, Guntur. With a viewto make construction over the sites, petitioners approached the GunturMunicipal Corporation i.e. the respondent and requested to furnishthem the application forms and challans for permission to construct. Itis represented that the respondent is refusing to issue applicationforms without stating any reasons. The petitioners referred to thelitigation in respect of their lands which includes two suits and one writpetition. They contend that there is no justification for the respondentin refusing to furnish them the application forms and challans.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learnedStanding Counsel for Municipal Corporation for respondent.
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, whichalso applies to the respondent-Corporation, prescribes the procedurefor submission of applications seeking permission to construct and thevarious steps that are to be taken upon such applications. TheMunicipal Corporation is conferred with the power either to grant orreject such applications, depending upon the facts and circumstancesof each case. There cannot be any justification in refusing to furnishthe application forms. Even otherwise, the petitioners can be informedin writing as to why they are not entitled for issuance of the applicationforms or the permission in case such application is made.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to issue application forms to the petitioners enabling themto submit the same seeking permission to construct. In case the application forms cannot be issued to them, the respondent-Corporation shall state the reasons in writing by making reference tothe provisions of law. However, if any application is made, it shall beopen to the respondent-Corporation to examine the same and take adecision under communication to such applicant in writing.
There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
29[th] December 2009CVRK