Dismissed

Prashanthi Hills Welfare Association, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Nov 2015WP/38040/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition seeking relief against a registered society's use of road jurisdiction in a colony. The court held the dispute falls under the relevant Act or civil suit. Interim relief via WPMP was disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petition No.48946 of 2015 disposed of as infructuous.

Prashanthi Hills Welfare Association, Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.38040 of 2015

¶3

Dated 24.11.2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

Prashanthi Hills Welfare Association rep. by its President N.Jagal Reddy

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The State of Telangana rep. by its Prl.Secretary Panchayat Raj Dept., Hyderabad and 3 others.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.Venkanna

¶11

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Panchayat Raj (TS)

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

O r d e r :

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed by the Welfare Association of a Colony viz., Prashanthi Hills, Meerpet Gram Panchayat, with the grievance that respondent No.4 has formed itself into an Association and started changing the name boards in Phases I to V of the said Colony.

¶15

According to the petitioner, the said roads fall within its area of operation and respondent No.4, which is also registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act’), has been wrongly exercising its jurisdiction over these roads. The petitioner is aggrieved by the purported inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in preventing respondent No.4 from exercising its jurisdiction over the above mentioned roads.

¶16

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the nature of the dispute raised by the petitioner cannot be decided by either respondent No.2 or respondent No.3. If the dispute raised by the petitioner is comprehended by the provisions of the Act, it has to work out its remedies under that Act and if no such remedy is available thereunder, it can only avail the common law remedy of a civil suit to prevent respondent No.4 from exercising its jurisdiction over its area of operation.

¶17

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶18

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.48946

¶19

of 2015, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶21

Dt: 24^th November, 2015

¶22

LUR

Prashanthi Hills Welfare Association, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashanthi Hills Welfare Association, v. The State of Telangana

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

Meda Shoba Rani, Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Drapvi Residency Owners Association, Vs The Commissioner, Ghmc, Hyderabad.

Smt. Nakkala Vijayalakshmi, Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Shouri Reddy S/o. Sri O.Tirupal Reddy Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

P. Darshan Singh, S/o late Ratan Singh, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

R. Kannaiahlal, S/c late Balaji Singh, Vs Greater Hyderabad Wil_inicipal Corporation