Telangana High Court
WP/9830/2003 of S.RAMAKRISHNA Vs MUNCIPAL COMMISSIONER KORUTLA AND 2 OTHERS on 28 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.9830 OF 2003 Date: 28-12-2006 Between: Shikari Ramakrishna, S/o Dattadreya, aged 34 years, R/o 5-2-162, LIC colony, Korutla, Karimnagar. … Petitioner. And 1. The Commissioner, Korutla Municipality, Korutla, Karimnagar District and 2
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.9830 OF 2003
Date: 28-12-2006
Between:Shikari Ramakrishna,
S/o Dattadreya, aged 34 years,R/o 5-2-162, LIC colony, Korutla,Karimnagar.
… Petitioner.
And
1.The Commissioner,
Korutla Municipality, Korutla,
Karimnagar District and 2 others.
… Respondents.
* * *
ORDER:
This Court ordered Rule Nisi on 20.5.2003 and issued noticein W.P.M.P.No.12460 of 2003.
2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring theinaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in not restraining the 3[rd]respondent from proceeding with the unauthorised construction ofH.No.1-1-1116, Ward No.5, Pochamma Wada, KorutlaMunicipality, Karimnagar District, based on the representationdated 07.4.2003, submitted by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitraryand violative of provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act; and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriatesteps as per the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act torestrain and remove the illegal and unauthorised constructionsmade in H.No.1-1-1116, Ward No.5, Pochamma Wada, KorutlaMunicipality, Karimnagar District and pass such other suitableorders.
3. Learned counsel representing the writ petitioner S r i K.Vasudeva Reddy, had taken this Court through theaverments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitionand would submit that in view of the fact that notice had beenordered by this Court, subsequent constructions were proceededwith. However, several factual controversies had beenhighlighted.
4. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the writ petitionis hereby closed giving liberty to the petitioner to agitate his rightsin relation to the subsequent events, if the petitioner is soadvised. No order as to costs.
Date: December 28, 2006.
__________________
(P.S.NARAYANA, J.)
BSB