Telangana High Court
WP/12955/2009 of Vasupalli Ammoru, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, on 31 December 2010
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12955 of 2009 Between: Vasupalli Ammoru, S/o. late Marrayya, Hindu, Male, D.No. 36-3-2, Ganganna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 12955 of 2009
Between:
Vasupalli Ammoru, S/o. late Marrayya, Hindu, Male,D.No. 36-3-2, Ganganna Nagar, Ward No. 35, (Old 37),K.R. Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam-8
.... PETITIONER
AND
1 Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Commissioner, Aseelmetta, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Commissioner, Aseelmetta, Visakhapatnam.
2 Pasupuleti Kasulu, W/o. Sanyasi Rao, Hindu, Female, D.No. 36-3-17, Ganganna Nagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 36-3-17, Ganganna Nagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1strespondent in not taking any action against the illegal andunauthorized construction made by the 2nd respondent in Sy. No. 35(P) D.No. 36-2-17 in spite of refusing the building permission by R-1 dt.13-01-2004 and in spite of personal requests and writtenrepresentation dt. 14-05-2009 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious andviolative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently todirect the 1st respondent -Corporation to take action for demolition ofthe illegal construction made by the 2nd respondent after conductingdue enquiry or to pass any other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI,SATYANARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR
MPL. CORP. VSP)
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No : 12955 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:
The petitioner herein claims to be the absolute owner andpossessor of the building bearing Door No.36-3-2, Ganganna Nagar,Ward No.35 (Old:37) K.R.Kancherapalem, Visakhapatnam-8.
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction onthe part of the first respondent in considering the representation dated14.05.2009 made by the petitioner complaining about the allegedillegal and unauthorized constructions being made by the 2[nd]respondent in Sy.No.35 (P) D.No.36-2-17, Kancherapalem,Visakhapatnam, as arbitrary and illegal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent-Corporation.
The material on record shows that the representation/ complaintof the petitioner sent by registered post was received in the office of the1[st] respondent on 15.6.2009, as can be seen from the copy of thepostal acknowledgment. In the said circumstances, the first respondentis bound to consider the representation/complaint and make necessaryenquiry into the alleged illegal and unauthorized constructions beingmade by the 2[nd] respondent and appropriate action is expected to betaken in accordance with law.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the correctnessof the allegations made, the writ petition is disposed of at the admissionstage with a direction to the first respondent to consider therepresentation/complaint of the petitioner dated 14.5.2009 and passappropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunityto the 2[nd] respondent to rebut the allegations. Such an exercise shallbe completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a periodof four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Dt.01-07-2009
Note:- Issue C.C in 3 days(B/o)RAR
_____________
G.ROHINI, J
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 12955 of 2009
Conclusion
DATED : 01-07-2009