Remanded

Smt. P. Komala Kumari v. Guntur Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC11 Jun 2010WP/12645/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special original jurisdiction case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted an undertaking from the petitioner to close her hotel premises until June 10, 2010. Accordingly, the respondent was directed not to demolish or interfere with the building until that date.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed not to demolish or interfere with the building till 10.06.2010 pending the undertaking recorded.

Smt. P. Komala Kumari Vs Guntur Municipal Corporation — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN :PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 12645 of 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. P. Komala Kumari W/o Sri N. Nageswara Rao.

¶8

..... Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

Guntur Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, G.T. Road, Guntur, Guntur District. .....Respondent

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Petition and the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the notice vide Roc No. 5288/2009-G4 dated 01-06-2010 issued by the respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same.

¶12

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Venugopal, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri V. Ch. Naidu, Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation, Guntur for the Respondent, the Court made the following; ORDER :

¶13

“Sri P. Venugopal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner would request this Court to record the undertaking of the petitioner that he shall close the premises and not run the hotel thereat till 10.06.2010.

¶14

Learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner apprehends that, even though the building is structurally sound, recourse was being taken to Section 456 of the GHMC Act for extraneous reasons.

¶15

Recording the undertaking of the petitioner that he shall not run the hotel and shall keep it closed till 10.06.2010, the respondents are directed not to demolish or in any manner interfere with the building in question till then.

¶16

Post on 09.06.2010 in the Motion List.”

¶17

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶18

// TRUE COPY //

¶19

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶20

¶21

1.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, G.T. Road, Guntur, Guntur District. 2.Smt. P. Komala Kumari W/o Sri N. Nageswara Rao, Occ; Doctor, r/o House No.6-3-24, 3/2 Arandalpet, Guntur, Guntur District – 522 002. 3.One CC to Sri P. Venugopal, Advocate. (OPUC) 4.One CC to Sri V. Ch. Naidu, Standing Counsel/Advocate. (OPUC)

¶22

5.One spare copy.

¶23

H.A.

¶24

DRAFTED BY : H.A. DATED : 05.06.10 APPROVED BY : HIGH COURT

¶25

RRJ

¶26

DATED : 04.06.2010

¶27

POST ON 09.06.2010 IN THE MOTION LIST.

¶28

ORDER :

¶29

WP NO.12645 OF 2010

¶30

DIRECTION

Smt. P. Komala Kumari v. Guntur Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. P. Komala Kumari v. Guntur Municipal Corporation

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

Hyderabad Pubcli School Pvt. LTd., Office at Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Kondapalli Venkata Rao Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ladda Nookaratnam Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

P. Naveen Kumar, Vs Gadwal Municipaoity, Gadwal REp by its

Gandikota Komaraiah Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Ch. Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs Greter Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its