Dismissed

Kondaveeti Raghunatha Reddy, v. The Regional Deputy Director

Telangana HC4 Jun 2009WP/11093/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the failure of respondent authorities to stop alleged illegal construction. The court found the alleged inaction unfounded as the authorities had initiated prosecution u/s. 228, 340, and 360 of the A.P.M. Act, 1965 prior to the petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

No order passed. Writ petition dismissed with the finding that the respondent authorities had taken appropriate legal action prior to the petitioner's representation.

Kondaveeti Raghunatha Reddy, Vs The Regional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 11093 of 2006

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kondaveeti Raghunatha Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, R/o. Siddhartha Colony, Nalgonda Town.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Regional Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Commissioner, Municipality, Nalgonda Town.

¶12

3 The Town Planning Supervisor, Municipality, Nalgonda Town.

¶13

4 The District Collector, Nalgonda District.

¶14

5 K. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Ram Chandra Reddy, R/o. H.No. 4-10-741, Siddhartha Colony, DVK Road, Nalgonda Town.

¶15

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No. 1 to 4 in not taking any action for stopping the illegal construction of the respondent No. 5 in plot No. 8, Ward No. 4, Block No. 10, Siddhartha Colony, DVK Road, Nalgonda Town which is in contravention of the permission in file No. G/19/2006 dt. 24-3-2006 and consequently direct the respondents No. 1 to 4 to take immediate steps on the representation t. 22-05-2006 given by the Petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KIRAN PALAKURTHI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV.

¶19

The Court made the following :

¶20

THE HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.11093 of 2006

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not taking any action for stopping the illegal construction of respondent No.5 in Plot No.8, Ward No.4, Block No.10, Siddartha Colony, D.V.K. Road, Nalgonda TownM as arbitrary and illegal.

¶24

2. In response to the notice ordered by this Court, respondent No.5 filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Separate counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Executive Engineer and Municipal Commissioner (Full Additional Charge) of Nalgonda Municipality, on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and

¶25

3, stating as under:

¶26

“It is respectfully submitted that in reply to para 3 of the affidavit, I submit that it is true that the permission granted vide B.A. No.G1/19/2006, dated.24.6.2006. The permission was accorded as per the rules and regulations and as per the documents submitted by the Respondent No.5. After granting the permission when we visited the proposed constructed site and it was found that the construction as commenced by deviating the sanctioned plan and found some deviations against the sanctioned plan. To the construction made against the sanctioned plan that we have booked a case vide U.C.R.No.46/2006 on 26.4.2006 and issued a Provisional Order U/s.228(i) and (ii) against the party and served to him. And on 3.5.2006 we have issued a Confirmation Order u/s.228(iii) against the party and served the same. Further, this office has initiated the action against the party by prosecuting in the court of law u/s. 340 and 360 of A.P.M.Act, 1965. And it is submitted that at the time there was no representation filed by the petitioner. We have taken action on our personal inspections only. It is false that we have not taken any action on respondent No.5, the petitioner given his representation in the month of May, 2006. It is clearly shown that we have taken action prior to the representation only. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner using this Hon’ble Court to redress their personal scores against the 5^th respondent. We have already initiated action as per Law by issuing Notices u/s.228 of A.P.M.Act before filing representation by the petitioner”.

¶27

3. The petitioner has not filed any affidavit in reply nor any

¶28

other material is placed before this Court contradicting the stand taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶29

4. In the circumstances, the alleged inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 4 is unfounded and the interference by this Court is unwarranted.

¶30

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

_____________________ JUSTICE G. ROHINI 04.06.2009. Msr/Ivd

¶32

THE HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.11093 of 2006

¶34

04.06.2009 (Msr/Ivd)

Kondaveeti Raghunatha Reddy, v. The Regional Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondaveeti Raghunatha Reddy, v. The Regional Deputy Director

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

M/s. Mohans Wood Works Vs The Project Director, Rajiv Vidya Mission (Ssa)

S. Laxmipathi S/o Ashalu Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government of

Akhila Ramachandran, Vs The Registrar, Dr. Nrt university of Health Sciences

M.Sathamma, Vs The Commissioner of Labour

B.Muralidhar, Vs The Director of School Education, Government of

Raghuram Kondala, Vs Dr. N.T.R.University of health Sciences