Telangana High Court
WP/26549/2006 of Tatavarthi Manikyala Rao, Vs Bhimavaram Municipality, on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.26549 of 2006 DATED: 22.12.2006 Between: Tatavarthi Manikyala Rao, s/o. Venkataratnam … Petitioner and Bhimavaram Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner. ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.26549 of
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.26549 of 2006
DATED: 22.12.2006
Between:
Tatavarthi Manikyala Rao, s/o. Venkataratnam …Petitioner
and
Bhimavaram Municipality,rep. by its Commissioner.
...Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.26549 of 2006
ORDER:
The matter is coming up for admission. Heard Sri Ch.Dhanunjaya, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and SriNageshwara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing therespondent.
The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring theproposed action of the respondent in constructing the proposedshopping complex on the road margin of DNR College Road by theside of the Old Bus Stand (Yanamadurga Canal road) on the rear sideschedule property i.e., Ratnam Enterprises, P.P.Road, bearingD.Nos.3-1-21, 3-1-20, 3-1-25 situated at II Town Bhimavaram, WestGodavari district, without even leaving approach road for the ingress and egress of the petitioner and the devotees of Sri Anjaneya Swamytemple, as illegal, null and void, abuse of power and violative ofprinciples of natural justice and for a consequential order directing therespondent to stop all further proceedings in construction of theproposed shopping complex and to pass such suitable orders.
Several factual details are narrated in para Nos.2 to 8 of theaffidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is also stated that arepresentation was made in this regard, dated 08.05.2005, to therespondent, but the grievance is that even the said representation wasnot considered and disposed of, in spite of repeated requests.
In the light of the facts and circumstances explained, the WritPetition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider anddispose of the representation, dated 08.05.2005, of the petitioner at anearly date, preferably, within a period of six seeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this Order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No orders as tocosts.
Dt:22.12.2006vv/bsb
__________________
(P.S.NARAYANA, J)