Telangana High Court
WP/21172/2008 of M/s. Vasavi Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2009
R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.21172 of 2008 Date: December 29, 2009 Between: M/s. Vasavi Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Regd.No. AMC/VSP/DCO/2004/754, Main Road, Visakhapatnam-1, represented by its Secretary Sri N. Nooka Raju, S/o. late Sri Radha Krishna, residing
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No.21172 of 2008
Date: December 29, 2009
Between:
M/s. Vasavi Mutually Aided Cooperative
House Building Society Ltd., Regd.No.AMC/VSP/DCO/2004/754, Main Road,Visakhapatnam-1, represented by itsSecretary Sri N. Nooka Raju, S/o. lateSri Radha Krishna, residing at D.No.25-12-53,Gangulavari Street, Visakhapatnam-1, and another … Petitioners
And
State of A.P., represented by its PrincipalSecretary, Municipal Administration,Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 13 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.
Order:
The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action ofrespondents 2 to 4 in not reacting to their grievances, against respondents 5to 14, as illegal and arbitrary.
The members of the first petitioner-society and the second petitionerare the owners of a residential complex, by name Vasavi Towers, bearingD.No.58-13-16, situated in Sy.No.27/2A of Butchirajupalem village, within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. In the affidavit filedin support of the writ petition, it is stated that on the rear side of the residentialcomplex in question, the buildings owned by respondents 5 to 12, which arestated to have been leased to respondents 13 and 14, are situated. It isstated that respondents 13 and 14 are using the said buildings as hostelswherein about 500 students are housed and in view of lack of properdrainage system, sullage and drainage water is being let out in the openarea, which is passing through the residential complex of the petitioners,resulting in foul smell and health hazards. It is also stated that a notice dated14-06-2008 has been issued to respondents 5 to 14, bringing to their noticeabout the aforesaid facts, but no action has been taken.
This court on 29-06-2008 issued notice before admission, but,however, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents.
Whether there is negligence on the part of respondents 13 and 14 inletting out the sullage and drainage water is a matter, which is in the domainof the respondents, and the same has to be examined by them. As it is thegrievance of the petitioners that in spite of a notice issued in this regard, noaction has been taken, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitionpermitting the petitioners to submit representation afresh to respondents 2 to4 within a period of four weeks. On filing such representation, respondents 2to 4 shall conduct an enquiry, by issuing notice to the affected parties, andpass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within sixweeks from the date of receipt of the representation to be submitted by thepetitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
December 29, 2009N.B. Furnish copy in a weekB.O.
______________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
MRR