This petition challenged a proposed action to dig a trench as arbitrary and illegal, violating work orders and fundamental rights. The Court found the petitioners' allegations to be unfounded based on the counter affidavit stating no trench was dug or proposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No. 10461 of 2009
Between:
1 Smt.Krishna Kumari W/o. Sri R.Raja Gopal Rao Garu H.No.8-3-224/9/3 Plot No.107 H-Block,Bhavanipuram Madhuranagar Colony,Yousufguda Hyderabad
2 A.Rajaiah S/o. Sri Rajamallu Garu H.No.8-3-224/9/3 Plot No.108 H-Block,Bhavanipuram Madhuranagar Colony,Yousufguda Hyderabad
3 S.Uttamkumar Chowdary S/o. Sri Bhura Ram Chowdary H.No.8-3-224/9/3 Plot No.109 H-Block,Bhavanipuram Madhuranagar Colony,Yousufguda Hyderabad
4 Kanyakumari Chowdary W/o.Sri Prakash Chowdary H.No.8-3-224/9/3 Plot No.110 H-Block,Bhavanipuram Madhuranagar Colony,Yousufguda Hyderabad
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 The Commissioner Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,Hyderabad(GHMC) 2 The City Planner Greater Municipal Corporation Hyderabad,Hyderabad(GHMC)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
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 declare the action of the respondent No.2 from in any diging up trench contrary to the work order and estimate drawn up along with the plain way back in the year 2001 in W.O.No.EE/PD.M/MCH/2001-02 dt 2607-2001 as illegal,violative of various Court orders arbitrary against the principals of justice and contravening the provisions enshrined under Articles 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.JAGDISH
Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.10461 of 2009
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the alleged action of the second respondent in digging a trench contrary to the work order and estimate drawn up in work order bearing W.O.No. /EE/PD.M/MCH/2001-02, dated 26.7.2001 as arbitrary and illegal.
2. In response to the notice ordered by this Court, the Assistant City Planner, Circle No.X, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents stating that a compound wall was already constructed by the respondent-Corporation earmarking the open space and that no trench was dug by the respondent-Corporation, nor there was any proposal for digging such a trench in the land in question. It is further stated that Madhura Nagar residents have only taken up the cleaning and levelling of the ground of the park and no other construction work is proposed.
3. In view of what has been stated in the counter affidavit, the allegations made by the petitioners are unfounded and appear to be mere apprehensions. Hence, no interference by this Court is warranted.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. ROHINI 05.06.2009. Msr/Ivd
THE HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.10461 of 2009
05.06.2009 (Msr/Ivd)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the purported digging of a trench by the respondent Corporation violates the work order and fundamental rights.
Whether the allegations are well-founded or mere apprehensions based on the respondent's counter affidavit.
Smt. Krishna Kumari and others
Commissioner Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
City Planner Greater Municipal Corporation Hyderabad
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
