Telangana High Court
WP/18332/2008 of S.Srinivas, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2009
R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18332 OF 2008 Date : 29.12.2009 Between: S. Srinivas others. …… Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.18332 OF 2008
Date : 29.12.2009
Between:
S. Srinivas others.
…… Petitioners
And
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its PrincipalSecretary, Municipal Administration & others.
…..Respondents.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
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:
WRIT PETITION No.18332 OF 2008
In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions byway of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part ofrespondents 1 to 4 in taking steps against respondent No.5for using the premises in Plot No.6 of Road No.76, JubileeHills, Hyderabad for commercial use, though the same is inthe residential zone, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by thelearned counsel for petitioner that at present, the building isnot being used for any commercial purposes, but it is let outonly for residential purpose. Even in the counter filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, it is stated that since thepremises was found locked when the respondents havesought to serve notice under Section 441 of the HyderabadMunicipal Corporation Act, 1955, no further action is taken.3. As it is stated that presently the premises in question isbeing used only for residential purposes, keeping it open tothe respondents to take appropriate steps if subsequently theuse of premises is changed, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
_____________________
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
29[th] December 2009
ajr