Disposed

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, v. K.V. Sharmila , Venkata Sharmila

Telangana HC21 Sept 2012WA/536/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The two-judge court disposed of a writ appeal filed by the Cantonment Board. The court observed that the writ petitioner had already preferred a separate appeal before the appellate authority under Section 340 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. Instead of deciding the appeal on merits, the court directed the appellant to dispose of the pending appeal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Dir. appellant to dispose of the appeal filed by the writ petitioner before the appellate authority within 2 months.

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO.536 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:21.9.2012

¶5

Between: The Secunderabad Cantonment Board Court House Compound S.P. Road Secunderabad Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer … Appellant And

¶6

Smt. K.V. Sharmila … Respondent

¶7

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.536 OF 2011

¶10

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶11

This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.29.6.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P. No.12512 of 2011.

¶12

The respondent herein filed W.P. No.12512 of 2011, questioning the action of the appellant – Secunderabad Cantonment Board, in pasting Letter/notice dt.23.4.2011 at the premises of the petitioner directing her to vacate her premises within 24 hours from the date of pasting the notice, to enable the respondent officials to demolish the premises on Plot No.96 in Sy.No.74/6, Balamrai Cooperative Housing Society, Mahindra Hills, Secunderabad.

¶13

The Hon’ble Single Judge, after considering the matter, disposed of the writ petition, along with other similar W.P. Nos.12513, 12514, 12523, 16670 and 17222 of 2011, by a common order, observing that under Section 340 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act’), a remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners, and granted liberty to the petitioners to avail such remedy within two weeks from the date of the said order. The Hon’ble Single Judge also directed the appellate authority to pass appropriate orders in the appeal following due process of law and till such time, granted stay of demolition of the structures in question.

¶14

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant – Cantonment Board has filed this appeal.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The case of the appellant is that according to the provisions of the Act, by exercising power vested in the Cantonment Board, it proceeded against the unauthorized construction and the writ petitioner has not preferred any appeal questioning the statutory notice issued under Section 248 of the Act, resulting in issuance of final notice. By virtue of the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, though the writ petitioner has no right over the unauthorized construction in question, she got right to carry on till the appeal is disposed of.

¶17

It appears that the respondent – writ petitioner pleaded before the Hon’ble Single Judge that notice under Section 248(1) of the Act was not served on her any point of time. Hence, the Hon’ble Single Judge permitted the writ petitioner to file an appeal under Section 340 of the Act, within two weeks time from the date of the order.

¶18

It is also submitted by Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal that the said appeal has already been filed in the matter by the petitioner before the appellate authority and the same would be disposed of.

¶19

In the circumstances, we think that it would be appropriate for us to dispose of this appeal directing the appellant to dispose of the appeal filed by the writ petitioner before the appellate authority within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

¶20

The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶21

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶22

_____________________ 21.9.2012 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶23

bnr

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, v. K.V. Sharmila , Venkata Sharmila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, v. K.V. Sharmila , Venkata Sharmila

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

Garigipati Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Vs Sri T.Chandrasekhara Naidu

Katakam Rajeshwar Vs The State Bank of India

Bramha Devi Mastanamma Vs District Collector

Maruthi Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Government of India

D.Prabhakar Rao, Vs The District Collector

REliance Infratel Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commision