Disposed

Smt. C. Deva Vara Laxmi David v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC11 Aug 2015WP/13795/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted a general direction treating a notice issued without prior warning as a show-cause notice. The petitioner was directed to submit an explanation within four weeks. The status quo was maintained pending submission.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice treated as show-cause notice; petitioner to file explanation within four weeks; status quo maintained.

Smt. C. Deva Vara Laxmi David Vs The Greater… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No. 13795 OF 2012

¶3

Between:

¶4

Smt. C.Deva Vara Laxmi David. …Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

¶7

Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶8

and others. ..Respondents

¶9

Date of Judgment pronounced: 11.08.2015

¶10

Submitted for Approval:

¶11

The Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

¶13

May be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No

¶14

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

¶15

Marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

¶16

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair

¶17

Copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

¶18

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶19

Writ Petition No. 13795 of 2012

¶20

ORDER :

¶21

The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that without issuing any prior notice as envisaged under Sections 452 (1) and 461(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) straight away impugned notice has been issued under Section 636 of the Act of 1955 on 07.05.2012.

¶22

Heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶23

Apparently, the impugned proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it is not preceded by any notice as envisaged under Sections 452 (1) and 461 (1) of the Act of 1955. Though interim order was granted on 11.05.2012, no counter is filed by the respondents.

¶24

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned notice dated 07.05.2012 may be treated as show-cause notice under Sections 452 (1) and 461(1) of the Act of 1955 to the petitioner.

¶25

In view of the statement of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the impugned notice dated 07.05.2012 shall be treated as show-cause notice under Sections 452 (1) and 461(1) of the Act of 1955 and the petitioner shall file explanation to the same within a period of four (4) weeks from today. On submission of the said explanation, it is open for the respondent Corporation to consider the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Till then

¶26

status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained.

¶27

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand disposed of.

¶28

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶29

11.08.2015.

¶30

KVS

¶31

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶32

W.P. No.13795 OF 2012

¶33

Date: 11-08-2015

¶34

KVS

Smt. C. Deva Vara Laxmi David v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. C. Deva Vara Laxmi David v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sai Sagar Enclave Welfare Association, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Thakur Ram Singh Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Vemuri Venkata Subramanya Kumar, Vs M/s.Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited

A. Shanker, Vs The Bhongir Municipality

M/s. Sai Sahitya Polymers, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G.Naveen, Vs The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation