Telangana High Court
WP/26330/1998 of R. Ramesh Vs The Managing Director on 26 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU W.P.Nos.26330 of 1998, 19303 of 1999 & 19914 of 1999 Date: 26-12-2007 Between: R.Ramesh and others Petitioners And The Managing Director, Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Khairtabad, Hyderabad and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
W.P.Nos.26330 of 1998, 19303 of 1999 & 19914 of 1999Date: 26-12-2007
Between:
R.Ramesh and others
Petitioners
And
The Managing Director,Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board,Khairtabad, Hyderabad and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
W.P.Nos.26330 of 1998, 19303 of 1999 & 19914 of 1999COMMON 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.
1. All these three writ petitions are filed questioning the proceedings in C/1968/UCD/LA/MCH/89 dated 26-06-1999 issued by the AdditionalCommissioner (Development), M.C.H. and the proceedings connected therewith.
2. After both sides put forth their contentions and that when the casesare posted for orders, the learned standing counsel for the MunicipalCorporation of Hyderabad produced ProceedingsNo.C/1968/UCD/LA/MCH/89 dated 20-12-2007 issued by theCommissioner and Special Officer, GHMC, Hyderabad, withdrawing theproceedings No.C/1968/UCD/LA/MCH/89 dated 26-06-1999 issued bythe Additional Commissioner (Development), MCH- impugned in one ofthese petitions on the ground that the final notification issued by theAdditional Commissioner under Section 3(2) of Slum Development Act(obviously a mistake for A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of land) Act33/1956) by exercising powers not vested in him.
3. In view of the said proceedings dated 20-12-2007 issued by theCommissioner and Special Officer, GHMC, Hyderabad withdrawing theproceedings issued by the Additional Commissioner (Development) MCH- impugned in one of these petitions, these petitions have becomeinfructuous.
4. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. However, thepetitioners are entitled to costs of these petitions, payable by therespondents. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- in each petition.
________________
C.Y.SOMAYAJULU,J
26-12-2007Stp