Disposed

Reddy Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Aug 2015WP/23762/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging unautherized exhibition by a Respondent leading to financial loss, the court found that fees were collected for the portion within municipal limits. Disposing of the petition, it directed the petitioner to approach the Sub-Collector regarding the Gram Panchayat's role for the remaining area.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty granted to petitioner to approach Sub-Collector regarding Gram Panchayat's role in collecting fees.

Reddy Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.23762 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed alleging that the 04^th Respondent has put up an exhibition in the name and style of Titanic/Pushkar Exhibition adjacent to R.T.C. Complex in R.S.No.306/1 at the location known as Telukulolla Cheruvu. The petitioner alleges that no permission was granted to the 04^th Respondent and no charges were collected from him for establishing such an exhibition and this will result in huge financial loss to the Respondent - Municipal Corporation, which is already suffering from severe financial constraints. Because of the financial constraints of the Municipal Corporation, the residents of the municipal area are subjected to lot of hardship and suffering.

¶5

This matter was adjourned twice to enable the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions as to whether any permission was granted and whether any fee was collected from the 4^th Respondent.

¶6

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, states that the place where the exhibition is established partly falls within the jurisdiction of the Respondent-Municipal Corporation and the major portion comes within the neighbouring Gram Panchayat and on minor portion of the place where the exhibition established which falls

¶7

within the Respondent - Municipal Corporation an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) which is the amount payable for establishing exhibition within the Municipal Corporation Limits was collected from the 04^th Respondent. With reference to the rest of the area, as it falls within the neighbouring Gram Panchayat, the Respondent-Municipal Corporation has no jurisdiction to collect the fee from the 04^th Respondent.

¶8

In view of the said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies insofar as the submissions made by the counsel for the Municipal Corporation on the issue of collection of requisite fee by the concerned Gram Panchayat from the

¶9

04^th Respondent. The petitioner is granted liberty to bring to the notice of Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry the issue of establishment of exhibition by the 04^th Respondent within the limits of Gram Panchayat, which is adjacent to the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation and as and when such issue is brought to the notice of the Sub-CollectorRajahmundry, the Sub-Collector shall consider the same and take appropriate course of action.

¶10

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

P. NAVEEN RAO, J. August 13, 2015.

¶12

skmr

Reddy Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reddy Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Sri Bala Tripurasundari Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gopi Appukuttan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Guntuka Raja Ram Vs The State of Telangana

Tautam Sandeep, Vs State of Telangana

M/s.Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Labour

M/s.Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. (a Vs The Commissioner of Labour