Telangana High Court
WP/28413/2009 of K.Ramakrishna Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.28413 of 2009 Between: K. Ramakrishna ... PETITIONER(S) and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep by its Chief Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad and other …RESPONDENT(S) THE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THIS THE 29[th] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009
W.P.No.28413 of 2009
Between:
K. Ramakrishna
and
... PETITIONER(S)
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep by its ChiefCommissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad and other …RESPONDENT(S)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYW.P.No.28413 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 and the 3[rd] respondent are neighbours. Thepetitioner submitted representations dated 29.10.2009 and 11.11.2009to respondents 1, 2 and 4 alleging that the 3[rd] respondent hasencroached into the public road and even has made constructionenclosing the electrical pole within his premises. The grievance of thepetitioner is that no action has been taken thereon. It is also stated thatthe construction made by the 3[rd] respondent is without anypermission.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned StandingCounsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the learnedStanding Counsel for A.P. TRANSCO.
If what is stated by the petitioner is true, it amounts to failure onthe part of respondents 1, 2 and 4 in enforcing the relevant provisionsof law. They cannot remain oblivious to the representations made by the petitioner. If any action is warranted against the 3[rd] respondent,notice needs to be issued to him.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents1, 2 and 4 to take necessary action on the representations submittedby the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mentionthat in case any action is warranted against the 3[rd] respondent, heshall be put on notice. There shall be no order as to costs.
29[th] December 2009CVRK
__________________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J