Dismissed

M/s. Suresh Productions, Rep. by its Managing PArtner v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Dec 2010WP/32774/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a memo that kept an earlier directive removing road obstructions in abeyance. The Court found the impugned memo was transient, based on objections from a representative of an association, and noted the petitioner had not pleaded submitting a sanctioned layout since the earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach respondent No.2 with the sanctioned layout; respondent No.2 to consider the same within four weeks and decide appropriately. W.P.M.P. No.41637 of 2010 disposed as infru

M/s. Suresh Productions, Rep. by its Managing PArtner… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.32774 of 2010

¶3

DT.27.12.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s.Suresh Productions

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Vidya Prasad

¶11

Counsel for respondent Noss.1 to 3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy

¶12

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash memo No.2207/2008-B1(PTS), dated 29.12.2008, of respondent No.2, whereby he has kept his earlier memo, dated 16.12.2008, in abeyance.

¶15

I have heard Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4.

¶16

In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.5-Association.

¶17

The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of Acs.2.00 comprised in Survey No.104/part of Puppalaguda Village,

¶18

Rajendranagar Gram Panchayat, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 11.04.2005. It is its pleaded case that the area is covered by a sanctioned layout, that it has obtained building permission from the Gram Panchayat, Puppalaguda on 17.10.2006 and that after inclusion of the area in Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, the petitioner has got regularized the building permission. The petitioner averred that for extraneous reasons, respondent No.5 has started obstructing it to use the connecting road from Dolloars Coloy to Lalamma Garden Colony and that when it approached respondent No.2, after extensive consideration of the issue, he has issued memo, dated 16.12.2008, directing respondent No.4 to see that obstructions caused by respondent No.5 to the above-mentioned road are removed to facilitate free access to the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the subsequent memo, dated 29.12.2008, by which, his earlier memo was kept in abeyance by respondent No.2.

¶19

A perusal of the impugned memo shows that respondent No.2 obviously received a representation from one V.Bhaskar Reddy, Joint Secretary of respondent No.5-Association, after issuing memo dated 16.12.2008 by him, and he has accordingly kept the said memo in abeyance till the petitioner submits clear cut layout. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that after the said memo was issued, it has approached respondent No.2 with the layout and with a request to him to restore his earlier memo, dated 16.12.2008.

¶20

In my opinion, as the impugned memo is purely transient in nature issued on the objections raised by a representative of respondent No.5, I find no reason for the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 and satisfy him on its entitlement to use the road with reference to the sanctioned layout. Instead of doing this, the petitioner having waited for nearly two years has filed this writ petition.

¶21

In the light of these facts, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition at this stage. The petitioner is permitted to approach respondent No.2 with the sanctioned layout as requested by the latter in the impugned memo. Within four weeks on receipt of such representation from the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision.

¶22

Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41637 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶23

Date: 27.12.2010 VGB

M/s. Suresh Productions, Rep. by its Managing PArtner v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Suresh Productions, Rep. by its Managing PArtner v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Sanga Vijayalakshmi Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Smt. Muni Lakshunumma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Adbul Rehaman Vs The Joint Collector

M/s. Golla Chenchaiah Ipb Retail Kerosene Dealer, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep bythe Secretary to

Syed Habeeb Ali Vs The Gram Panchayat

Kasukurthi Sundararao Vs The Chairman and Managing Director