Allowed

Shaik Riyaz, v. Municipal Commissioner

Telangana HC13 Aug 2015WP/36454/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, owning a residential house, filed a writ petition complaining of nuisance caused by an unlicensed poultry farm run by a third respondent in the same locality. The court directed the Municipal Commissioner to take action to remove the stall.

What did the court decide?

The Municipal Commissioner directed to take action for removal of the chicken stall preventing the third respondent from carrying on his business.

Shaik Riyaz, Vs Municipal Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

¶4

W.P.No.36454 of 2012

¶5

Between: Shaik Riyaz

¶6

… Petitioner/Appellant (s)

¶7

And

¶8

Municipal Commissioner and 2 others.

¶9

… Respondent (s)

¶10

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 13.08.2015

¶11

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶12

	THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEK	ER REDDY
1	Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?	Yes/No
2	Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals	Yes/No
3	Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?	Yes/No

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.36454 OF 2012

¶15

O R D E R :

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of the house bearing municipal No.7/7, Chinnapeerla Panja, Islampet, Mangalagiri town, Guntur District and the said house is situated in the residential area. While so, the 2^nd respondent who is the owner of the house bearing No.7/6 in the same locality has leased out the said house to the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent has opened Chicken shop, poultry farm in the said house since June, 2012 without obtaining license and has been causing nuisance by dumping the waste material in the surrounding areas from which foul smell is emanated polluting the surrounding areas. Complaining about the same, the petitioner along with local people made a representation to the 1^st respondent requesting to remove the chicken shop and poultry farm. As no action has been taken, the present writ petition is filed.

¶17

Counter is filed by the 1^st respondent stating that the 3^rd respondent is having D & O trade license. Basing on the complaint made by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent directed the Sanitary Inspector to conduct enquiry and the Sanitary Inspector after inspection submitted a report stating that there are untidy conditions around the chicken stall and foul smell is emanating from it polluting the area and causing nuisance to the public. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 25.06.2012 ordering the 3^rd respondent to remove the chicken stall. It is also submitted that the 1^st respondent received an application on 05.07.2012 from the 3^rd respondent stating the he has been paying Municipal tax (D&O trade license) regularly and running the chicken stall neatly in good sanitary conditions by disposing the waste from to time and requested to ignore the complaint. It is further stated that one Sk.Ameer also made complaint against the 3^rd respondent 16.07.2012 and basing on his complaint, a report was submitted to District

¶18

Collector on 04.08.2012 and the issue was placed before the Council. Thereafter, the Council has cancelled the D & O trade license of the 3^rd respondent vide order 18.08.2012 by issuing notice. On 06.12.2012, a final notice was issued asking the 3^rd respondent to remove the chicken stall within 3 days.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though notices were issued, the 3^rd respondent has not removed the chicken stall as on today.

¶20

On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for the 1^st respondent submits that action has been initiated against the 3^rd respondent.

¶21

In the present case, though notices are served on the 3^rd respondent, there is no appearance on behalf of him and no counter is filed. But it cannot be said that the action has not been initiated by the 1^st respondent on the representation of the petitioner. Since it is stated that the 3^rd respondent has not removed his chicken stall in pursuance to the notices issued by the 1^st respondent, it is for the 1^st respondent to take action for removal of chicken stall preventing the 3^rd respondent from carrying on his business, in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 13.08.2015 dv

Shaik Riyaz, v. Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Riyaz, v. Municipal Commissioner

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

P.Yerriswamy, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Begari Neelakanta Vs Begari Pedda Yellamma

Sravanthi Nivas Welfare Association (Reg), Vs The Deputy Commissioner

K.Sudershan Vs The Managing Director

Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Having its

M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs The Commissioner