Disposed

G. Venkateswara Rao, v. The Greater Hyderabad of Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC16 Feb 2015PIL/25/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a PIL addresses alleged inaction by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation regarding vegetable market encroachments on footpaths. The Court directed the Corporation to investigate complaints and take action within eight weeks, noting a prior order from 2013.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to look into complaints and take action on encroachments within eight weeks.

G. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Greater Hyderabad of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶3

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 25 OF 2015

¶5

DATE: 16.02.2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

G. Venkateswara Rao

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & others.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

This Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶14

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 25 of 2015

¶15

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

¶16

This writ petition has been filed alleging inaction on the part of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for not taking appropriate steps for removing the encroachments on the footpath and pavements in spite of the complaints made by the petitioners and in violation of the orders of this Court. It is alleged that the encroachers are selling the vegetables by occupying the entire Anandnagar colony situated at Khairatabad, Hyderabad, in the name and style of “Wednesday Market” on every Wednesday.

¶17

It is submitted that complaints have been made on 13.12.2011, 18.03.2013, 29.11.2014 and 09.02.2015, and on an identical issue this Court passed order dated 29.07.2013 directing the Municipal Corporation to take steps.

¶18

Under these circumstances, at this stage, we can direct the respondent – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to look into the complaints made by the petitioner and take a decision in this regard, and if any action is called for, shall also be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. While doing so, it shall take note of the order dated 29.07.2013 passed by this Court as alleged by the petitioner.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending

¶20

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶21

___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶22

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶23

Date: 16.02.2015 ES

G. Venkateswara Rao, v. The Greater Hyderabad of Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Venkateswara Rao, v. The Greater Hyderabad of Municipal Corporation

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

Captain Ikram a Kaleem Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Addanki Raja, Vs The State of telangana

All India Backward Classes/Other Backward Classes Party Vs The Chief Secretary

R. Mahesh Reddy Vs Union of India

Katam Praveen Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Sri Vishnu Sahasranama Parayana Mandali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

P.Lakshmi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary

M.Salahuddin Ayub S/o Sadiq Zaheeruddin, Vs The Government of Telangana