Dismissed

Dhanraj Singh, v. Mr.Somesh Kumar

Telangana HC2 Sept 2014CC/873/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case concerning alleged non-implementation of a common order in W.P.No.21750 of 2009 directing GHMC actions on Master Plan deviations and parking violations, the court dismissed the petition due to lack of specific details regarding violations. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the respondent regarding violations.

Dhanraj Singh, Vs Mr.Somesh Kumar — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.873 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In this Contempt Case it is alleged that the order in W.P.No.21750 of 2009 dated 05.08.2011 is not implemented.

¶5

This Court disposed of the four Writ Petitions, including W.P.No.21750 of 2009, by a common order dated 05.08.2011, issuing the following directions:

¶6

“1. The Respondent Corporation should ensure that there is no deviation from the Master Plan or sanctioned plan under any circumstances. If there is any deviation, the GHMC should take immediate action to enforce the same.

¶7

2. The Respondent Corporation should periodically assess whether existing buildings are in accordance with the Master Plan. The concerned officials should be held accountable if there is any violation of the Master Plan.

¶8

3. With respect to existing construction, which is illegal and is in deviation of Master Plan, the GHMC should take action to demolish the same.

¶9

4. If there is any violation of the Master Plan or the GHMC sanctioned plan, GHMC should immediately inform the AP TRANSCO and HMWSSB to take appropriate action.

¶10

5. All public roads should be used for the movement of traffic and cannot be used for allotment to private agencies for the purpose of parking.

¶11

6. GHMC should notify designated parking zones in various places for the purpose of parking. GHMC should construct multilayered parking zones at various places throughout the city.

¶12

7. GHMC should ensure that footpaths are used only for pedestrians and bus stand. Under no circumstances should the footpaths be used for hawking or any other material.

¶13

8. All commercial establishments in the city should have their own parking facility and cannot use the road for the purpose of parking. GHMC should not give permission to any new commercial establishment unless, they provide sufficient parking space for users of the said premises. With respect to the existing establishments, GHMC should serve notice on all commercial establishments within the city, requiring them to create appropriate parking space within six months. If the said establishments fail to do so, GHMC should take appropriate

¶14

action for cancellation of their licence under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act.”

¶15

In the present Contempt Case a counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner stating that the unofficial respondent in W.P.No.21750 of 2009 filed O.S.No.4534 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking permanent injunction, and the same was decreed on 31.12.2010. He also stated that though the unofficial respondent obtained building permission for construction of stilt + 2 upper floors on 12.01.2009 and 05.02.2009, he submitted revised plan for construction of ground + 3 upper floors and pent house and claimed deemed sanction under Section 437 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Thereafter no further construction was made by the said unofficial respondent.

¶16

Though a reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating that extra floors were illegally constructed by the unofficial respondent, no details have been furnished.

¶17

In view of the disposal of W.P.No.21750 of 2009 and O.S.No.4534 of 2009, all the issues raised and covered by the above proceedings cannot be reagitated in the contempt proceedings. The respondent has stated that in view of the orders passed by this Court and the decree passed by the civil Court, he is under an obligation to implement those proceedings. In the absence of any details with regard to the violation of the specific directions of this Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Contempt Case. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the respondent with regard to the violations committed by the unofficial respondent in W.P.No.21750 of 2009, and the respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to take further proceedings.

¶18

With the above observations, the Contempt Case is dismissed.

¶19

02.09.2014 vs

¶20

(A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J)

Dhanraj Singh, v. Mr.Somesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanraj Singh, v. Mr.Somesh Kumar

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

Syed Reyaz Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Mangaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

M/s.Asvini Fisheries Private Limited, rep. by its Vs The sEcretary, Agricultural Market Committee

M/s United Steel Allied Industries (P) Ltd, Vs The Superintending Engineer

P.v.Varaprasad, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Kurnool

M/s Anand Ispat Udyog Ltd., Vs Transmission Corporation of a.P> Limited