Disposed

B.Rajamani v. Municipal commissioner

Telangana HC8 Jun 2007WP/9635/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an admission stage order in a writ petition challenging the refusal to accept building plans without a TSLR certificate. The petitioner agreed to obtain the certificate and submit a fresh application. The petition was disposed of on these terms.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of after the petitioner undertook to obtain the TSLR certificate and submit a fresh application.

B.Rajamani Vs Municipal commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 9635 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

B.Rajamani W/o Sri B.Laxman Rao H.No.3-5-634, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Municipal commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,

¶12

Hyderabad

¶13

2 Assistant commissioner MCH, Narayanaguda Circle, 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 will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to accept the plans by insisting for production of TSLR Certificate in respect of H.No.3-6-634, Vittalvadi, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.NAGESWARA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.G.RAMA RAO, S.C. for M.C.H.

¶18

The Court at the admission stage made the following ORDER:

¶19

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to accept the plans by insisting for production of TSLR Certificate in respect of H.No.3-6-634, Vittalvadi, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner already made an application to the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad for issuance of T.S.L.R. certificate and on receipt of the said certificate, the petitioner will submit a fresh application to the respondents seeking permission for construction of the house.

¶22

If that be the case, on petitioner making an application to the respondents, enclosing T.S.L.R. certificate, the respondents shall not insist him for ‘No Objection Certificate’ and shall process the said application for grant of building permission and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶23

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

02.11.2004

ksld

1 Municipal commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,

¶28

Hyderabad

¶29

2 Assistant commissioner MCH, Narayanaguda Circle, Hyderabad

¶30

3 Two CD copies.

B.Rajamani v. Municipal commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Rajamani v. Municipal commissioner

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

Suresh Singh , Chunnu Pahelwan, Vs The State of a.P., through Public Prosecutor

Penuballi Ramesh, Vs Gorantla Murali Mohan, (Dhr)

S.M.N.Nabi, Vs Girijan Co-operative Corporation Ltd.

Khagendranath Roy Vs Mr. K. Vinayaka Kumar

The Bishop Vs Appellate Authority under the payment of wages Act

The Bishop Vs Appelatte Authority Under the Payment of wages Act