This single judge order allows a writ petition challenging development charges because the issue is squarely covered by a previous judgment in W.P.No.4010 of 2005 & batch dated 5.10.2010.
Writ petition allowed in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.4010 of 2005 & batch, dated 5.10.2010.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
W.P.No.29150 of 2014
ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4.
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the levy and collection of the development charges pursuant to the letter dated 09.09.2009 of the 2nd respondent.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel on either side fairly concedes that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.4010 of 2005 & batch, dated 5.10.2010.
In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.4010 of 2005 & batch, dated 5.10.2010. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
10th April, 2015
rkk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging development charges must be allowed since it is covered by a previous order.
What is the appropriate disposal of the writ petition in view of the binding precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.4010 of 2005 & batch, dated 5.10.2010Followed¶6
Petitioner
Respondents 1 to 4
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
