Disposed

M. Bhaskara Satyanarayana v. Vizinagaram Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner

Telangana HC16 Dec 2011WP/17338/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petition seeking mandamus to direct municipality to consider petitioner's building plan. Petitioner alleged inaction; Respondent counterclaimed non-submission. Court directed petitioner to submit fresh plan and fee, directing Respondent to consider it within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh building plan and fee; respondents directed to consider approval within one month.

M. Bhaskara Satyanarayana Vs Vizinagaram… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.17338 OF 2010

¶3

DATE: 16.12.2011

¶4

BETWEEN: M.Bhaskara Satyanarayana .. Petitioner And Vijayanagaram Municipality and another

¶5

.. Respondents

¶6

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶7

W.P.No.17338 OF 2010

¶8

OREDER:

¶9

Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶10

This writ petition is filed alleging that the building plan submitted by the petitioner for construction of the building in an extent of 243 sq. yards in Survey No.36 of Vizianagaram Town was not considered in spite of repeated representations by the petitioner. It is specifically mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that a representation dated 01.11.2003 was submitted, but no action was taken by the first respondent in spite of receiving representations. It is also submitted that due to the inaction of the first respondent, the petitioner filed writ petition No.15463 of 2004 before this Court, wherein an interim direction was granted to the respondent therein to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 01.11.2003 submitted by the petitioner. It is said that the interim order was also communicated to the respondents, but no action was taken by the respondents for consideration of the building plan submitted by the writ petitioner along with the other required documents.

¶11

Alleging as above, the petitioner sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to act on the representation of the

¶12

petitioner and pass appropriate orders sanctioning the building plan relating to the site admeasuring 243 sq. yards covered by registered Settlement Deed dated 0.04.2002.

¶13

In response thereto, the first respondent filed counter stating that no building plan was submitted by the petitioner for consideration of the respondents and also requisite fee was not remitted. The counsel for the petitioner reports that in fact the building plan along with other documents was submitted, but no action was taken by the respondents.

¶14

Under these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh building plan along with other documents and pay the prescribed requisite fee, if any. After receiving the building plan along with other documents for approval from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the approval of the building plan in accordance with the rules, within a period of one month.

¶15

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

__________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J

¶17

Dated: 16.12.2011 kvrm

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶19

W.P.No.17338 OF 2010

¶20

DATE: 16.12.2011

M. Bhaskara Satyanarayana v. Vizinagaram Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Bhaskara Satyanarayana v. Vizinagaram Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner

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

Dr. J De Souza, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

M/s.Ambitionz NHomez (Regd.Partnership Firm) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Secretary

Satish Kumar Shah, Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan Development

Pralhad Rao, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Smt. Deenam Konda Pavani, Vs Greater Viskhapatnam Municipal Corporation

S.Janardhana Rao, Vs The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation