Disposed

Buddana Srisaibabu, v. Municipal Corporation of Kakinada

Telangana HC1 Apr 2005WP/7128/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Witnessed a writ petition challenging a notice to shift a poultry center. Held that the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's explanation and not to interfere with possession pending final orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's explanation and pass appropriate orders; interim direction not to interfere with possession of premises.

Buddana Srisaibabu, Vs Municipal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 7128 of 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

Buddana Srisaibabu, S/o.B.Visweswara rao, R/o.Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Municipal Corporation of Kakinada, rep.by its Commissioner, Kakinada, East Godavari Dist.

¶11

2 The Municipal Health officer, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, Kakinada, E.G.District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring notice dated 22-02-2005 issued by the 2nd respondent and the action of the 2nd Respondent in directing the petitioner to shift the poultry and chicken center to the far of place without giving any opportunity and without conducting any enquiry on the basis of the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 18-03-2005 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice without jurisdiction and unconstitutional.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY

¶15

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

The petitioner was served with a notice dated 22-02-2005, issued by the second respondent-Municipal Health Officer, under Section 108 and 134 of A.P. Public Health Act, alleging that the poultry farm being run by the petitioner in a residential area is causing health problems to the residents of the locality and therefore calling upon him to remove the same from the existing premises.

¶18

The petitioner states that all the allegations made in the notice are false and without any basis and accordingly he submitted an explanation on 18-03-2005. However, the respondents have failed to consider the explanation and in the meanwhile taking steps to dispossess him from the premises in question. Hence, this writ petition.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the allegations made by the respondents, I am of the view that it would be appropriate for the respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders before initiating any action as proposed under the impugned notice.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 18-03-2005 which is filed at page 10 of the material papers filed in this writ petition and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till such time, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the premises in question.

¶21

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶22

G. ROHINI, J

¶23

Dated: 01-04-2005

¶24

LSK

¶25

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶26

¶27

1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kakinada, East Godavari Dist. 2. The Municipal Health officer, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, Kakinada, E.G.District.

¶28

3. Two C.D. copies.

Buddana Srisaibabu, v. Municipal Corporation of Kakinada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddana Srisaibabu, v. Municipal Corporation of Kakinada

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

Municipal Workers Welfare Society gudivada, Vs The Commissioenr, Gudivada

Kola haranath, Vs Vishakapatnam Municipal Corporation

M/s. Mc. Dowell and Company Limited, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Puli Sanjeev, Vs The Regional passport officer

B.Laxman, Vs District Collector

V.Rambabu, Vs The District Collector