Telangana High Court
WP/26546/2006 of M/s. Vikrampuri Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Vs TheSecunderabad Cantonment Board repbyits on 22 December 2006
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No. 26546 of 2006 Between M/s Vikrampuri Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Secunderabad ..Petitioner AND The Secunderabad Cantonment Board and others ..Respondents :: JUDGMENT :: Counsel for the
HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDHON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No. 26546 of 2006
BetweenM/s Vikrampuri Co-operative House Building Society Ltd.,Secunderabad AND
..Petitioner
The Secunderabad Cantonment Board and others
..Respondents
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.
:: JUDGMENT ::
Counsel for the petitionerCounsel for respondent No.1Counsel for respondents 2 to 5
Sri P.SrinivasSri Deepak BhattacharjeeSri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, AssistantSolicitor General 22.12.2006
Per G.S.Singhvi, CJ
In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a direction toSecunderabad Cantonment Board (for short, the Board’) to demolishthe alleged illegal construction made by respondent Nos.6 to 9 on PlotNo.C-2, Vikrampuri Colony, Secunderabad. It has been further prayedthat respondent Nos.6 to 9 be restrained from alienating the allegedillegal structures and the Board be directed to seal Plot No.C-2 andstop all further activities on the said plot.
In the affidavit filed by him, Shri W.V. Ramana, Secretary of thepetitioner society has averred that despite the objections raised by thesociety against the construction of commercial structure on Plot No.C-2, which is a residential plot, respondent Nos.6 to 9 have erected ahuge commercial complex and that too in complete violation of thesanctioned plan. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of his affidavit, Shri W.V.Ramana has given the details of the so-called violation of thesanctioned plan. In paragraph 6, he has referred to the civil suit filedby Shri A. Ananta Krishna Rao whose plot and house is situated onthe northern side of Plot No.C-2 and averred that even though IIISenior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad passed an order ofinjunction on 24-11-2005, respondent Nos.6 to 9 did not stop theconstruction activity.
We have heard Shri P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitionerand perused the record. In our opinion, the writ petition is liable to bedismissed because the petitioner has already got itself impleaded asparty in the civil suit filed by Shri A. Ananta Krishna Rao, which isregistered as O.S.No.936 of 2005 and is pending in the Court of IIISenior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Not only this, theinterim order passed by the Civil Court on 24-11-2005 restraining theprivate respondents from raising construction is still operative. If thepetitioner finds that the order of injunction is being violated, then it canavail appropriate legal remedy for seeking enforcement of order dated24-11-2005 passed by the Civil Court.
The other reason for our disinclination to entertain the prayer made by the petitioner is that effective alternative remedies areavailable to the petitioner by way of appeal and revision underSections 340 and 343 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act’)and there is no extraordinary reason for making a departure from thesettled rule that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India, if an effective alternative remedy isavailable to the petitioner.
With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed leavingthe petitioner free to avail the alternative remedies under Sections 340and 343 of the Act.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP Nos.34100and 34101 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are alsodismissed.
G.S.SINGHVI, CJ
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J