Dismissed

Muppuri Venkata Bhaskara Rao v. The Commissioner, Piduguralla Nagara Panchayat

Telangana HC31 Dec 2010WP/31986/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the construction of public toilets at a petrol pump location, alleging violation of a specific municipal resolution. The Court held that a subsequent resolution superseded the original, destroying the petition's foundation, and reduced the location decision to the authority's domain.

What did the court decide?

no order as to costs

Muppuri Venkata Bhaskara Rao Vs The Commissioner… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31986 OF 2010

¶3

BETWEEN:

¶4

1. Muppuri Venkata Bhaskara Rao S/o. Venkta Narasimham, R/o. D.No.12-164 Ward No.12 Piduguralla (V&P) and Mandal, Guntur District, and another.

¶5

PETITIONERS

¶6

And

¶7

The Commissioner, Piduguralla Nagara Panchayat, Piduguralla (V&M), Guntur District.

¶8

RESPONDENT

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B. Venu Madhav

¶10

Counsel for the respondent: Sri S. Nageswara Reddy

¶11

The Court made the following order:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioners claim to be the owners of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.24 ¼ cents situated at Piduguralla Village, Guntur District. It is stated that they are running a petrol retail outlet under lease from Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Mumbai. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in constructing the public toilets at the place other than the one approved by the municipality vide resolution No.728 dated 31.07.2008, as illegal.

¶14

Heard Sri B. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Nageswar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Piduguralla Nagara Municipality passed resolution No.728 dated 31.07.2008 to construct toilets at three places, viz., 1) Janapadu Road Iceland centre; 2) Pillutla Road Police Station Centre; and 3) Venkatewara Mahal Cinema Hall Centre. According to them, the 1^st respondent is bound by the resolution of the Panchayat to ensure construction of toilets only at the said places and no other. The petitioners state that however the respondent is allowing construction at different places including the one at the petrol pump being run by the petitioners. It is also stated that there is some Government land available, which is under the occupation of unauthorized persons, adjacent to the cinema theatre viz., Sri Jayalaxmi Picture Palace and the petitioners contend that the toilets could be constructed there instead of at the petrol pump.

¶16

The learned Standing Counsel on instructions would state that

¶17

resolution No.728 dated 31.07.2008 was superseded by a subsequent resolution CR.No.95 dated 31.12.2009 changing the locations. Subsequent to resolution No.728 the respondent caused an inspection through the Assistant Engineer and Sanitary Inspector, and the said officers after due enquiry in consultation with the public and the police concerned and also the Roads and Buildings Engineer, submitted a report stating that the present location is more useful to the public. Upon such report, the subsequent resolution CR.No.95 was adopted to shift the construction of toilets at the present site. It is submitted that the present site is centrally located and adjacent to two bus-stops, Cinema halls and business establishments. Therefore the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the construction was shifted to the present site in the interest of public and the same cannot be faulted.

¶18

Having considered the rival contentions, it may be mentioned that the sole substantive contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent has permitted construction of toilets violating resolution No.728 dated 31.07.2008 of the Piduguralla Nagara Panchayat. But the said resolution has been superseded by a later resolution CR.No.95, dated 31.12.2009. The very foundation on which this writ petition has been filed is therefore fizzled and the petitioner cannot complaint violation of any resolution by the respondent. Further, the petitioner also cannot be here to say that the toilets should be constructed at a particular place since the requirement and the location of such facilities are within the domain of the respondent. The learned Standing Counsel has also clarified that the construction is being made duly leaving 40 feet for thoroughfare to the petrol pump. In that view of the matter, there are no merits in the writ petition.

¶19

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

¶20

NOUSHAD ALI, J. 31^st December, 2010 Js.

Muppuri Venkata Bhaskara Rao v. The Commissioner, Piduguralla Nagara Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muppuri Venkata Bhaskara Rao v. The Commissioner, Piduguralla Nagara Panchayat

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

Afroz Nabi Khan Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Thota Sreerama Murthy Vs The Government of A.P.

M. Masarathullah Vs The Greater Hydearbad Municipal Corporation

Faheem Qadri Vs The Commissioner

G. Jagadeeswara Reddy Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporataion

Mantha Ramaswamy Vs State of a.P.Rep. by Spl.Public Prosecutor