Disposed

Medarametla Tirish Kumar v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Feb 2024WP/4378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation to act against unauthorised lift construction in his apartment. On the 3rd respondent's undertaking that no lift would be erected without permission, the court disposed of the writ petition at admission, restraining construction without permission and directing the corporation to enforce this.

What did the court decide?

3rd respondent restrained from erecting lift without 2nd respondent's permission; 2nd respondent to ensure compliance; no costs.

Medarametla Tirish Kumar Vs the State of Ap — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:lAMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

Xf,
o o

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 4378 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Medarametia Tirish Kumar, S/o. Veerababu, aged 42 years,^Occ. Private Employee, R/o. D.No. 59A-2/1-2/1, F-1, Dharani Apartment, Shirdi Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District.

¶14

The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶15

Dharani Apartment, D.No.59A-2/1-2/1, Shirdi Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District, Rep. by its President Prathipati^Saibabu. ...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226,of the Constitution of India praying that in

¶17

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, One in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS or

¶18

¶19

any other appropriate Wirt, declaring the inaction^{ofthe2ndrespondentin} taking action against the illegal and unauthorized construction of lift in Dharani Apartment, D.No.59A-2/1-2/1,Shirdi Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of^{Art14,21and300-Aof}

¶20

‘ Coristitution of India apart from GHMC Act and consequently^directthe :respondent authorities to take necessary action against the unauthorized/illegal construction of lift made by the 3rd respondent in Dharani Apartment, D.No.59A-2/1-2/1, Shirdi Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District in the interest of justice.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to direct the 2^^ Respondent to stop the illegal construction of lift made by the 3’’'^ respondent in Dharani Apartment, D.N0.59A-2/1-2/1, Shirdi Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada,^NTRDistrict.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN

¶25

URBAN DEV

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR SRI MANOHAR REDDY,

¶27

ADVOCATE (SC)

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: NONE

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶31

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.4378 OF 2024

¶33

Medarametla Tirish Kumar, S/o Veerababu, Aged 42 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o D.No.59A-2/1-2/1, F-1, Dharani Apartment, Shirdi Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶34

... Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District and two others.

¶37

... Respondents

¶38

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Rambabu Koppineedi Counsel for respondents ; GP for MA85UD and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, Standing counsel and M/s PiUix Law Firm for R3.

¶39

:ORDER:

¶40

The above writ petition is filed to declare the inaction^of the 2nd respondent in initiating action against the illegal construction of lift at respondent Apartment, as illegal^and arbitrary.

Page 2 of 4

SRSJ WP No.4378/2024

Heard Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^^ respondent and Mrs. S.L.N.Harika, learned counsel representing M/s Pillix Law Firm for the respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the residents (flat owners) of the respondent Apartment are erecting a^liftin the apartment without obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent Corporation.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notwithstanding the notice issued by the 2nd respondent^vide RC.G6-BO-XI/21073043/01/2024, dated 12.02.2024, the residents of the 3rd respondent Apartment are proceeding with erection of lift and the 2nd respondent is not taking any ’action.

¶46

Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel would submit that pursuant to issuance of notice dated 12.02.2024, the authorities stalled further construction/erection of^lift.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent , on •s instructions, would submit that without obtaining permission

¶48

Page 3 of 4 SRSJ WP No.4378/2024

¶49

¶50

from the 2"^ respondent, the residents of the 3^^ respondent Apartment will not erect lift. The said submission^made by the learned advocate is recorded.

¶51

In view of the submission of learned counsel for the^{3^^} respondent that without obtaining permission from the 2"^ respondent, residents (flat owners) of the 3^^ respondent Apartment will not erect lift, the Writ Petition is^disposedofat the stage of admission directing the 3^^ respondent^not to erect lift in Dharani Apartment, D.No.59A-2/1-2/1, Shirdi 9 Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District without obtaining permission from the 2^^ respondent.

¶52

The 2^’^ respondent shall also ensure that the 3^<^ respondent shall not proceed with further erection of lift without any permission from the 2^^ respondent. No^costs.

¶53

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any.

shall stand closed.

SD/- M SRINIVAS

To,

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT R^^RAR ^S^TION OFFICER

¶59

The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Thulur Mandal, Guntur District.

¶60

The Vijayawada Municipar Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶61

Dharani Apartment, D.No.59A-2/1-2/1, Shirdi Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District, Rep. by its President Prathipati^Saibabu.

¶62

One CC to SRI RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV, High^Courtof Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶64

Two C.D Copies MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:22/02/2024

ORDER

.-"iSSSS-S
o
5-10^ 29JUL 202'i „
Currem Seclion .
*

¶69

WP.No.4378 of 2024

¶70

DISPOSING THE W.P s WITHOUT COSTS

Medarametla Tirish Kumar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medarametla Tirish Kumar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akula Sreedhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mahayajula Gireesam Sarma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boddapati Saraswathi at Atchayyamma Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

M/s. Jp Ram Infra Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Pedda Mallikarjuna Vs Proddatur Municipality

Naripinni Pentarao, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation