Telangana High Court
WP/6227/2020 of Indus Towers Limited, Vs The State of Telangana, on 31 December 2024
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRry FRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO:622 7 0F 2020 Between: lndus . Towers Limited, surve.y . No.133-4-5i , gth
[ [31681]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRry FRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION NO:622 7 0F 2020
Between:
lndus . Towers Limited, surve.y . No.133-4-5i , gth Floor, sLN Terminus, besideQoJqnlcat [Gardens, Gachibowti, Hyderabad--50005r, ]A;it.'uv iG Ciicii"Li,iri#;;Sri P.Purushotham
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration and Urban DeveloomentDepartment, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.'
2. Jagtiyal Municipatity, Rep.by its Commissioner, Jagtiyal, Telanganahate r
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature ofa writ of Mandamus declaring the reiection order vide Roc.No.G1/164 gtzolg,dated 11.09.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent through which the 2nda writ of Mandamus declaring the reiection order vide Roc.No.G1/164 gtzolg,dated 11.09.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent through which the 2ndrespondent rejected permission to the petitioner to erect relecommunicationlnfrastructure Tower (Tlr) i.e. Roof rop Tower at H.No.6-3-274l1, adnreasuring882 Sq.Yrds., Munur kapu Sangam, near Mutyalapochamma Temple, Jagtiyal,882 Sq.Yrds., Munur kapu Sangam, near Mutyalapochamma Temple, Jagtiyal,Telangana state as arbitrary, illegar, contrary to law and also the provisions ofMunicipalities Act and Rules framed there under and against the G.o.Ms.No.g6,dated 05.08-2015, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,Government of relangana and in violation of the well seftled principles of naturaljustice consequently set asidethe said rejection order issued by the 2ndrespondent.Municipalities Act and Rules framed there under and against the G.o.Ms.No.g6,dated 05.08-2015, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,Government of relangana and in violation of the well seftled principles of naturaljustice consequently set asidethe said rejection order issued by the 2ndrespondent.
IA NO| 1oF [2020]
PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit [filed ][irn ][support ][of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]suspendthereiectionorderRoc.No.Gltl64Sl2olg'dated1,1/09/2019issuedbythe2ndrespondentthroughwhichthe2ndrespondentrejectedpermissiontothepetitionertoerectTelecommunicationlnfrastructureTower(T11.)i.e.RoofTopTower at H.No.6-3-274ll,admeasuring [882 ][Sq.Yrds.Munur ][kapu sangam, ][near]Mutyalapochamma [Temple,Jagtiyal, Telangana ][State pending ][disposal ][of ][the writ]petition.
Counsel for the [Petitioner ][: SRI ][E.POORNACHANOER ][RAO]
Counsel for the [Respondent ][No.l ][: GP FOR ][MCPL ADMN URBAN ][DEV]
Counsel for Respondent [No.2: ][SRI ][RAPARATHI VENKATESH' ][Sc ][FOCGHMC]The Court made [the ][following: ][ORDER]
HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K. IIII{SHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.6227 of20/20
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:
Heard Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned StandingCounsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. Sri Etooru poornachander Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a letter datedLO-L2-2O24 before the Registry seeking permission of tfri"Court to withdraw the present writ petition.Court to withdraw the present writ petition.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. This Writ petition is dismissed as vrithdrawn. Thereshall be no order as to costs.As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if arrypending in the Writ petition sha_[ stand closed.
SD'- K.SREERAIIIAURTHYASSISTANISTRAR
//TRUE COPYI/
SECTION OFFICER
To,'1. One CC to SRI E.POORNACHANDER RAO, Advocate. [OPUC]2. Two CCs to GP FOR [MCPL ][ADMN ][URBAN DEV, High Court ][for ][the State of]Telangana. [OUT]3. one ic to Snt RApnRnrHt [VENKATESH, ][sc ][FoR ][GHMC.IoPUcI]4. Two CD Copies.BSKPSK
,'
HIGH COURT
DATED:3111212024
ORDER
WP.No.6227 [of ][2020]
DISMISSING [THE ][WRIT ][PETITION]AS WITHDRAWNWITHOUT [GOSTS]
7/z t{ /2,/<{