Disposed

Ameen Pasha v. The State Of Telengana Rep By Principal Secretary

Telangana HC13 Jul 2015WP/21445/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging inaction by municipal authorities regarding illegal gate construction by a neighbor on a common road. The court directed authorities to expeditiously consider complaints, afford an opportunity to the neighbor, and pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's complaints, afford opportunity to seventh respondent, and pass orders within four weeks.

Ameen Pasha Vs The State Of Telengana Rep By… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 21445 of 2015

¶3

Date :13-07-2015

¶4

Between : Ameen Pasha S/o Chani Pasha R/o H No. 17-1-348, Riyasath Nagar, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Prl Secretary (Municipal Admn) Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21445 of 2015

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents 3 to 6 in not taking action against the illegal construction being undertaken by seventh respondent in erecting a gate in common road opposite H No. 19-4273/12,

¶13

Mir Alam Tank,Hyderabad pursuant to his complaints dated 10.12.2014 and 2.03.2015 as illegal.

¶14

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for GHMC and with their consent the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶15

3. Petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of open plot in survey No. 34/1 and 34/2, admeasuring 450 sq yards, at Bom-Ruknud-Dowla village, Rajendranagar Ranga Reddy district and his sole grievance is that seventh respondent who is his neighbor occupied common road and erected a gate by grabbing the common passage to facilitate his business of supply of water tanker affecting the ingress and egress of public without obtaining any permission from the municipal corporation. Petitioner stated to have submitted representations to respondent GHMC authorities dated 10.12.2014 and 2.3.2015 and alleges that no action is taken thereon and the same are pending. 4. When the matter is taken up, both counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to expeditiously dispose of the complaints of the petitioner.

¶16

5. Having regard to the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the complaint of the petitioner dated 10.12.2014 and 2.3.2015 and after affording reasonable opportunity to seventh respondent, pass appropriate orders as warranted under law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.

¶17

______________ P NAVEEN RAO,J

¶18

DATE:13.7.2015

¶19

TVK

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No. 21445 of 2015

¶22

Date :13-07-2015

Ameen Pasha v. The State Of Telengana Rep By Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameen Pasha v. The State Of Telengana Rep By Principal Secretary

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

Chiranjeevi B S/o. Kistaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Panasa Thirupathi, Vs The State of Telangana

K.L.S.R. Infratech Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Chinna Mastan, S/o Kamal Saheb, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its

Syed Muzaffar, Vs State of Telangana

Medukonda Venu Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh