Disposed

S.K. Silks Pvt. Ltd., v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Telangana HC6 Oct 2004WP/18169/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a premises owner apprehending unauthorized demolition of stairs. The Court directed municipal authorities not to demolish the structure without following due legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to demolish the stairs in front of the petitioner's premises without following due procedure.

S.K. Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs Municipal Corporation of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO : 18169 of 2004

¶8

Between:

¶9

S.K. Silks Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Mr. V. Nagabhushanam, S/o Late V. Venkateshwara Rao, Aged 33 years, Occ: Business,. R/o C/o Pavani Prestige Complex, Shop Unit No. G1 & G2, M.No. 6-3-789, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle - IV, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Pavani Prestige Owners' Welfare Association, Rep. by its General Secretary, Zaffar Shah Nawaz , aged 45 years, R/o 701, Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in going ahead with the demolition of stairs in front of the premises of the Petitioner being G1 and G2 situated in Pavani Prestige Complex, having its premises M.No. 6-3-789, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, without issuing notice as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 21 and principles of Natural Justice

¶16

For the Petitioner: MR.D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, Advocate

¶17

For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN, Standing Counsel

¶18

The Court at the stage of admission made the following :

¶19

ORAL ORDER:

¶20

The petitioner claiming to be the tenant of G1 and G-2 in Pavani Prestige Complex having its premises bearing M.No.6-3-789 Ameerpet, Hyderabad having obtained the premises on lease under two registered lease deeds dt. 4-3-2003 filed the present writ petition apprehending that respondents may demolish the stairs in front of the petitioner’s premises that without following due procedure. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the representation said to have been filed by the third respondent, the first and second respondents are proceeding to demolish the stairs without any notice.

¶21

In case, the first and second respondents want to take any action on the representation of the third respondent against the petitioner for causing nuisance to the adjacent owners of the complex, they shall follow the procedure as per law in force for removal of such stair case and without following due procedure, they shall not demolish the stairs in front of the premises of the petitioner.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents not to demolish the stairs in front of the petitioner’s premises ie., G1 and G2 situated in Pavani Prestige Complex M.No.6-3-789 Ameerpet, Hyderabad without following due procedure.

¶23

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

6-10-2004

kmr

1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund,Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle - IV, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶28

3. 2 CD copies.

S.K. Silks Pvt. Ltd., v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K. Silks Pvt. Ltd., v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

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

Palaparthi Yesu S/o Bangaraiah Vs the District Panchayat Officer, Ongole

Mr.K.Kishore, Vs The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation

The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of Labour

National Thermal Power Corporation, Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Dande Subba Rayudu, Vs The District Collector

Uppala Sridhar, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its