Telangana High Court
WP/27895/2007 of Gasiganti Mohan S/o Nagaiah Vs The Municipal Corporation, karimngar on 27 December 2007
MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27895 of 2007 Date:27.12.2007 Between: Gasaganti Mohan. … Petitioner AND The Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, reptd., by its Commissioner, Karimnagar. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Venu Madhav. Counsel for
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27895 of 2007
Date:27.12.2007
Between:Gasaganti Mohan.
… Petitioner
AND
The Municipal Corporation,Karimnagar, reptd., by its Commissioner,Karimnagar.
… Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Venu Madhav.Counsel for the respondent: Sri J.Kanakaiah.
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.27895 of 2007
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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus todeclare the inaction of the respondent in taking action againstthe illegal construction of drain/nala in the land of the petitionerin Survey No.92/2, contrary to the markings given by theofficials of the respondent-Corporation, as illegal and arbitrary.
Heard Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for thepetitioner, and Sri J.Kanakiah, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent-Corporation.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though theofficials of the respondent had given markings for the contractorto execute the work of construction of drain/nala, which passesin front of the house of the petitioner, the contractor hasdeviated from the said markings in such a way as theexcavation is being carried on, on a part of his land.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that though representation dated 30-10-2007 wasmade by the petitioner to the respondent-Corporation, so far ithas not taken any action on the same. Learned StandingCounsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that theCorporation will have no objection if a direction is given todispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner.
Having regard to the respective submissions of thelearned counsel, without going into the merits of the WritPetition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petitiondirecting the respondent-Corporation to dispose ofrepresentation dated 30-10-2007, said to have been received by the office of the respondent on 3-11-2007, within a period of tendays from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
----------------------
----------------
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J
27-12-2007
Note:
Issue CC in three days. (B.O)
MNR