Disposed

K. Shilpa, v. Municipal Corporationof Hyderabd

Telangana HC15 Mar 2007WP/5144/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of six writ petitions alleging refusal to entertain building permission applications due to missing NOC. Standing counsel clarified that the authority must receive and acknowledge all applications regardless of content, rendering the petitions infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of as the respondents are not entitled to refuse receipt of applications.

K. Shilpa, Vs Municipal Corporationof Hyderabd — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.NOs. 5134, 5143, 5144, 5148, 5153 and 5156 of 2007

¶3

DATED: 15.3.2007

¶4

W.P.No.5134 of 2007 and batch

¶5

Between:

¶6

K. Sai Rajendra Prasad and others

¶7

… Petitioners and Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶10

W.P.NOs. 5134, 5143, 5144, 5148, 5153 and 5156 of 2007

¶11

ORAL COMMON ORDER:

¶12

The above writ petitions involve substantially similar fact situations and are accordingly considered and disposed of at the stage of admission together, after hearing Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.

¶13

The petitioners allege that the applications submitted by each of them for grant of building permission in respect of separate premises on ‘Dharam Karan Road’, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, are not being entertained or received by the respondents, on the ground that a ‘no objection certificate’ from the Joint Collector, Hyderabad does not accompany the applications.

¶14

The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation represents on instructions that the respondents are not insisting on a ‘no objection certificate’. It is also represented that irrespective of whether the applications of the petitioners for building permission are in proper

¶15

order or not, the respondents shall receive each and every application and shall pass on a signed receipt to acknowledge the receipt of applications.

¶16

Any objections to the applications either as to the form, content or defect as to the accompanying documents or payment of fees will be responded to by the respondents. The respondents are public authorities and cannot refuse any application for exercise of a statutory power.

¶17

With the above clarification and recording the submission on behalf of the Standing Counsel, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶18

------------------------------GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 15.3.2007 cvm

K. Shilpa, v. Municipal Corporationof Hyderabd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Shilpa, v. Municipal Corporationof Hyderabd

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

Smt.Dr.v.Aruna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by the Principal Secretary to

R.Nageswar Rao Vs Chairman Sri Visakha Grammena Bank

Dr.B.Rajagopala Sarma, Vs Director of Collegiate Education

A.Venkat Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector

Mr. D. Thirupathy, Vs Sub - Collector, Asifabad

M/s.Survarchala Dall mill rep., by its Prop Vs The Assistant Supply Officer, Circle I