Disposed

Chintala Prakash v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC10 Jun 2013PIL/266/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL filed by a public spirited citizen challenging the Municipal Corporation's failure to enclose an open park land. The court held that the PIL was premature as the petitioner had not waited for the authorities to respond to his representations before filing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to examine the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within three months. PIL allowed in these terms.

Chintala Prakash Vs The Greater Hyderabad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA P.I.L.No.266 of 2013

¶3

Date: 10-06-2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Chintala Prakash S/o. C. Appaiah

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, Division XII, Hyderabad, and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶11

P.I.L.No.266 of 2013

¶12

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶13

This public interest litigation is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not enclosing the open place/park and not taking steps to protect the open place/park situated in Sy.No.221 of Lalaguda, Secunderabad, which is located in Sanjeevaiah Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, inspite of the representations dated 15-04-2013 and 22-04-2013 made by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct respondent No.1 to enclose the open place/park.

¶14

2. The case of the petitioner, who claims to be a public spirited person, is that Sanjeevaiah Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, Lalapet, Secunderabad developed the land in Sy.No.221 and constructed 34 plots, and kept some place open for the purpose

¶15

of park. However, it is alleged that respondent No.2, without any manner of right, is trying to encroach the said open place/park and make constructions therein. In this regard, the petitioner made representations dated 15-04-2013 and 22-04-2013 to respondent No.1 requesting to take appropriate steps to protect the said open place/park, but no steps have been taken so far. Hence, the public interest litigation is filed.

¶16

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for respondent No.1-GHMC and perused the material placed on record.

¶17

4. Apparently the petitioner submitted the representations to respondent No.1 on 15-04-2013 and 22-04-2013, and immediately, without waiting for the orders to be passed thereon, he filed this public interest litigation on 06-06-2013 which is premature. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the public interest litigation. However, we direct respondent No.1 i.e., the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Division XII, Hyderabad, to examine the representations dated 1504-2013 and

¶18

22-04-2013 made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶19

5. The public interest litigation is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶20

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶21

_______________ N.V. RAMANA, J

¶22

Date: 10-06-2013

¶23

YCR

Chintala Prakash v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintala Prakash v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhunath Vasireddy Vs The Union of India., rep.by its Secretary

Prabhunath Vasireddy Vs The Union of India., rep.by its Secretary

D. Venkata Krishna Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Surya Prakash, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Narasimha Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal

V.Veera Swami Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. a. Venkateswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Rama Rao S/o Late Veeranna, Vs The Government of India Rep by its