Disposed

S.Mahaboob Basha v. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation rep.by its

Telangana HC11 Jul 2008WP/14903/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the construction of an 80-foot bridge instead of 65 feet, alleging violation of constitutional rights. The court disposed of the petition by directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.06.2008 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

S.Mahaboob Basha Vs The Kadapa Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14903 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

S.Mahaboob Basha S/o.Late S.Akbar Basha 7/2(A) Chilakala Bavi Street, Kadapa City & District

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Kadapa Municipal Corporation rep.by its Commissioner Kadapa City & District

¶10

2 The Superintending Engineer R&B Kadapa City & District 3 The Executive Engineer R&B Kadapa City & District

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

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 to issue an appropriate order or direction the action of the respondents in constructing a Bridge in front of petitioner house bearing Door No.7/2/2 Chilakalabaavi Street Kadapa town & District more than the sanctioned plan causing danger to petition house without following due process of law as arbitrary illegal and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to petitioner under Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restrict the construction of Bridge to 65 Feet only.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.I.NEWTON

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This writ petition has been filed by S.Mahaboob Basha assailing the action of the respondents in constructing the bridge with 80 feet

¶18

width instead of 65 feet in front of his house bearing Door No.7/2/2, Chilakalabaavi Street, Kadapa Town.

¶19

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶20

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 02.06.2008 to the respondents expressing his grievance with regard to the proposed expansion of the width of the bridge. Copy of the representation has been placed on record.

¶21

4. Since the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confines the relief of the petitioner with regard to consideration of his representation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs

¶22

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11^th July, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}

S.Mahaboob Basha v. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mahaboob Basha v. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation rep.by its

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

Steel City Shipping Services (P) Limited, a Company Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Dr.Potluri Venkateswar Rao, S/o Hari Purushothama Rao Vs The Vice-Chairnam

Smt. Varanasi Surya Kumari Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Vattikuri Das Babu, Vs M/s. Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban -

M.Jayaram Reddy Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Bavaraju Seeta Vs M/s.Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri