Disposed

Abdul Aziz Bin Almas, v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC23 Jul 2013WP/21730/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed an order rejecting a building application, relying on subsequent judicial orders that removed obstacles like a status quo caveat and dismissed related litigation, directing the Corporation to reconsider the fresh application.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to present a fresh application for reconsideration; the Writ Petition was disposed of.

Abdul Aziz Bin Almas, Vs Greater… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21730 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The petitioner has submitted an application seeking permission for construction of a building on 17.02.2010 to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. That application was rejected on 05.05.2010 by the Corporation essentially on the ground that W.P.No.4509 of 2007 was pending in this Court and there was also a pending civil suit in which an interlocutory order to maintain status quo was passed.

¶5

2. After the said rejection order, the writ petitioner herein has contested the civil suit - O.S.No.478 of 2008 and I.A.No.3621 of 2008 was moved therein. It is now stated that by a detailed order passed on 13.03.2013, the XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad has dismissed I.A.No.3621 of 2008 in O.S.No.478 of 2008 and thus, the status quo order prevailing earlier has since been dissolved. Insofar as W.P.No.4509 of 2007 is concerned, it is incorrect to assume that the said writ petition is pending whereas that has been disposed of by this Court on 26.10.2007 itself. It is, therefore, only appropriate, as very rightly pointed out by Dr. Y. Padmavathi, who accepted notice on behalf of the respondents, that the petitioner shall make available a fresh application or re-present the application, which was rejected once before, with a request to consider the same in the light of the orders passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad on 13.03.2013.

¶6

3. I am sure that the respondents will deal with any such application which the petitioner might present from now on enclosing all the necessary material thereto and deal with the same strictly in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶7

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be

¶8

no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶9

______________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶10

Date: 23.07.2013 Note:- Furnish C.C. within three (3) days.

¶11

B/O AMD

¶12

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.21730 OF 2013

¶14

DATE: 23.07.2013

¶15

AMD

Abdul Aziz Bin Almas, v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Aziz Bin Almas, v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. G. Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Chandubaigari Imam Hussain, Vs The State Government of A.P.

Dr. Ch. Nageswar Rao Vs Kakatiya University

Mohd. Ishaq Vs Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

A.Saritha Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

G. Niranjan Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary