Disposed

Gonugoppula Kishan S/o Narsimlu v. The.State of Telangana Rep.by its Principal

Telangana HC1 Sept 2015PIL/170/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL challenging a temple construction in a public hall due to lack of municipal permission. Court held the citizen society should approach the Corporation for permission to regularize; if refused, they must remove it. No injunction granted, writ disposed without ad interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner-society to apply for construction permission within two weeks. Corporation granted six weeks to consider the application.

Gonugoppula Kishan S/o Narsimlu Vs The.State… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

P.I.L.No.170 OF 2015

¶3

PC: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

The petitioner in the instant PIL makes the following prayer:

¶6

“…….to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondent 2 to 4 in permitting the 5th respondent to construct the Temple in the YSR Function Hall at Natarajnagar, Nirmal, Adilabad District is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, and consequently direct the official respondents to stop the construction of the temple in the YSR Function Hall at Natarajnagar, Nirmal, Adilabad District, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, and consequently direct the official respondents to stop the construction of the temple in the YSR function hall at Natrajnagar, Nirmal, Adilabad District…………”

¶7

The prayer is directed against the 5^th respondent. However,

¶8

learned counsel for the 5^th respondent submits that respondent No.1 is not constructing the temple and that he is not concerned with the said construction.

¶9

Natraja Nagar Residents and Owners Welfare Society has come forward through their counsel Mr.C.Naresh Reddy to state that they are constructing the temple as alleged. He submits that the temple was already in existence and since it was in a dilapidated condition, they are restoring it by making the questioned construction. He fairly states that the Society has not obtained any permission for restoration of the temple from the Municipal Corporation.

¶10

Mr.N.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, states that if the Society approach them for seeking permission to construct the temple and/or to seek regularization of the construction of temple which is in progress, they shall consider the same

¶11

on merits in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of their application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Society states the Society shall submit their application for seeking permission to construct the temple within a period of two weeks from today.

¶13

Their statements are accepted. It is needless to mention that the Corporation shall consider the Society’s application for seeking permission, as aforementioned, on merits in accordance with law within the stipulated time. If the permission is refused/rejected, it is needless to state that the Society will have to remove the construction, subject to their right to challenge the rejection.

¶14

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

¶16

_____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ___________________ S.V.BHATT, J Date: 01.09.2015 Stp/Lrkm

Gonugoppula Kishan S/o Narsimlu v. The.State of Telangana Rep.by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gonugoppula Kishan S/o Narsimlu v. The.State of Telangana Rep.by its Principal

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

Gangapatnam Mohan, S/o.Subbaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muslim Social Welfare Association Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mandava Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Principal Secretary

Uppada Siva Reddy S/o. Sanyasi Reddy, Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Cabinet Secretary

Bommakanti Anand Kumar S/o.B.Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Bucha Reddy, age 43 years, Vs The state of Telangana rep. by

B.C. Velama Samkshema Sangam Vs State of Telangana

Abdul Karim alias Waseem Memon, Vs State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary

M/.s.Naresh Kumar and Co., Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Anand Cycle Stores Vs State of Telangana

P.Narayana Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

S.V. Arts and Science College, Vs The A.P. State Council of Higher Education

M/s Mirador Commercial Pvt., Ltd., Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Zulekha Begum Vs The State of Telangana