Telangana High Court
WP/27205/2006 of Darshan Vijaysingh Bhatia, Vs The Commissioner, Municipal Corpaorationof Hyderabad, on 29 December 2006
SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27205 OF 2006 Between: Darshan Vijaysinh Bhatia ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad and others. .....Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the
HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICEAND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27205 OF2006
Between:
Darshan Vijaysinh Bhatia
AND
..... Petitioner
The Commissioner,Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,Hyderabad and others.
.....Respondents
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.
:: O R D E R ::
Counsel for the petitioner : Shri P.A.SeshuCounsel for the respondents : Smt.G.Jyoti Kiran Dated: 29.12.2006
Per G.S.SINGHVI, CJ
In less than ten days of his making representation to theCommissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for takingaction against the alleged illegal construction being raised byrespondent Nos.4 to 8, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdictionof this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India andmade the following substantive prayer:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Courtmay be pleased to call for the records pertaining tosanctioned plan permit No.118/87, dated20.07.2005, File No.104/Open/8/05 and issue anappropriate Writ, Direction or Order moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring that failure of respondents 1 to 3 inpreventing respondents 4 to 8 from makingunauthorized illegal constructions in violation ofbuilding byelaws, rules, regulations and statutoryprovisions, deviating from the sanctioned plan isarbitrary, capricious, illegal and violative ofstatutory provisions, Articles 14 and 300A of theConstitution of India consequently directing therespondents 1 to 3 to pull down and removeunauthorized illegal constructions made byrespondents 4 to 8 in Plot No.26, HUDA Enclave,T.S.No.2(P) and 3 (P), Block D, Ward No.9 andT.S.No.1(P), Block F, Ward No.9 of ShaikpetVillage, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District,Jubilee Hills (covered under MCH Ward 8, Block 2)in the interests of Justice.”
At the hearing, Smt.Jyoti Kiran, learned Standing Counselfor Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad invited our attention toxerox copy of notice No.UC/104/Open/8/2005.2006 dated 18.12.2006 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation ofHyderabad (respondent No.1) under Section 452 of the HyderabadMunicipal Corporation Act, 1955, perusal of which shows that evenbefore making of representation by the petitioner, respondent No.1initiated action in the matter of the alleged illegal constructionbeing raised by respondent Nos.4 to 8. Therefore, we do not findany justification to entertain the prayer made by the petitioner anddispose of the writ petition with the observation that if theconcerned authority of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad doesnot take appropriate action in furtherance of notice dated18.12.2006 within reasonable time, then the petitioner shall be freeto avail appropriate legal remedy including the one by filing freshpetition.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition,W.P.M.P.No.34951 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefis dismissed.
G.S.SINGHVI, CJ
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J