Telangana High Court
WP/27474/2009 of V. Rajagopal Reddy Vs The Commissioner on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.27474 of 2009 Between: V.Rajagopal Reddy ... PETITIONER(S) and The Commissioner, Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THIS THE 29[th] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009
W.P.No.27474 of 2009
Between:
V.Rajagopal Reddy
and
... PETITIONER(S)
The Commissioner, Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENT(S)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYW.P.No.27474 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.
ORDER:
Petitioner submits that he is the owner of premises bearingH.No.3-5-942, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. It is stated that in theimmediate neighbourhood of the petitioner certain works have beencarried out and in that process the drainage system was damaged. Petitioner complains that though representation were made by him andendorsements were made thereon by the concerned authorities, thedrainage system was not restored. He seeks appropriate directions inthis regard.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned StandingCounsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing forthe 1[st] respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel for HyderabadMetropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board appearing forrespondents 2 and 3.
The writ petition was listed before this Court on 17.12.2009 onwhich day an interim order was passed directing the respondents toattend to the complaint dated 16.09.2009 submitted by the petitionerand take necessary steps. Today it is represented that the drainagesystem has since been restored, and writ petition may be closed.
The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. There shall be no orderas to costs.
__________________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
29[th] December 2009CVRK