Dismissed

Tenneti Meenakshi Rajasekhar, v. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Feb 2024WP/3200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the不作为 of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation regarding complaints of illegal construction, the High Court disposed of the petition by directing the authorities to look into the petitioner's grievance and take necessary steps in accordance with law after the respondent counsel assured legal action against deviations.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 1 and 2 to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take necessary steps in accordance with law.

Tenneti Meenakshi Rajasekhar, Vs The… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3200 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tenneti Meenakshi Rajasekhar, S/o. Tenneti Suryanarayana, aged about 47 years, R/o. 1-14-7, S.B.I. Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

The Assistant City Planner, Zone - III, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam.

¶13

Badana Sri Harsha, S/o. B. Suryanarayana Naidu, aged about 35 years, R/o. M^G(-cI^D.No.58-14-49/3, VUDA Layout, NH-5, Marripalem,^{Visakhapatnam-}

¶14

Aarangi Katyayani, W/o. B. Sriharsha, D/o. A. Jagadish, aged about 34 years, R/o. D.No. 1-98-11, Plot No. 172, Sector 5, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam - 530 017. ^

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in not acting the complaints of the petitioner against the illegal construction of respondents 3 and 4 in D.No.1-14-6, SBI Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam (latest being dated 29.01.2024) is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondent to forthwith stop the illegal construction activity of respondents 3 and 4, in public interest and grant.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the U respondent to ensure that the construction of building of the

¶20

respondents 3 and 4 in D.No. 1-14-6, SBI Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam may be stopped forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition and grant.

¶21

t m

¶22

r (^iounsel for the Petitioner: M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES f I 4 m { ' Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.MADHAVA REDDY,^SCforGVMC bounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION^& * ‘ URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶23

The Court made the following order:

¶24

,A*

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.3200 OF 2024

¶28

Tenneti Meenakshi Rajasekhar, S/o Tenneti Suryanarayana, Aged about 47 years, R/o 1- 14-7, SBI Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakh ap atnam. ... Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam and four others.

¶31

... Respondents

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner ; M/s Bharadwaj Associates Counsel for respondents : GP for Municipal Administration and K.Madhava Reddy, standing counsel.

¶33

:ORDER:

¶34

This writ petition is filed to declare the inaction^onthe part of the 1®*^ respondent on the complaints of the^petitioner against the illegal construction of respondents 3 and 4 at D.No. 1-14-6, SBI Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶35

Heard Sri N.Nagarjuna, learned counsel representing M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner

o:T'

SRSJ WP No.3200/2024

Page 2 of 4

and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for^the

¶40

respondents 1 and 2.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 3 and 4 without obtaining permission from the 1st respondent, are proceeding with the construction.

¶42

Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, would submit that the respondents 3 and 4 obtained building permission for construction of S+G+4 for residential use vide BA NO.1086/5235/B/Z3/1TA/2022, dated 27.12.2023 at Door No. 1-14-6, SBI Colony in an extent of 259.65 sq.meters and commenced the earth work. He would also submit that if the authorities find any deviation, they will take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the construction activity of the respondents 3 and 4 take place on the Southern side, the compound wall of the petitioner will be collapsed.

¶44

In view of the submission of learned Standing Counsel that the respondent authorities will take necessary action in

¶45

Page 3 of 4

¶46

SRSJ WP No.3200/2024

¶47

accordance with law if they find any deviations, the^Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1^and2to

¶48

look into the grievance of the petitioner and take necessary steps in accordance with law. No costs.

¶49

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any.

¶50

shall stand closed.

¶51

Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTAN'n REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEC FFICER

The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam.

¶57

The Assistant City Planner, Zone - III, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam.

¶58

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Statenf Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶59

One CC to M/s Bharadwaj Associates, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri K,Madhava Reddy, SC for GMVC [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶60

Two Cb Copies

RAM

/ /

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3200 of 2024

I 1 1 MAR 2I)2A CO
^ . Current Section

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Tenneti Meenakshi Rajasekhar, v. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tenneti Meenakshi Rajasekhar, v. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd, Vs the The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Gunasekhar Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Alle Prabha Nagi Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pedamallu Anjaneyulu, Krishna Dist and Anr. Vs Prl Secy, M a and U D Dept., Hyd and 5 Others

Rapeti Nookaraju, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Y. Nagendra Prasad Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.