Dismissed

Mohd Abdul Qader , Shafath v. The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad.

Telangana HC22 Feb 2016PIL/339/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL petition challenging inaction of authorities regarding illegal construction near protected monuments. The court found that authorities had initiated proceedings under relevant acts and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as no further orders needed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Mohd Abdul Qader , Shafath Vs The Collector… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.339 of 2015

¶3

Date: 22.02.2016

¶4

Between: Sri Mohd. Abdul Qader @ Shafath, S/o Mohammed Wajihuddin Saheb, Aged about 40 years, Occu:Law Student, R/o 1-9-280, Adikmet, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad and another.

¶5

….. Petitioners and The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad and others.

¶6

…..Respondents

¶7

The Court made the following: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶8

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.339 of 2015

¶9

PC: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

¶10

This PIL is filed praying to grant following relief:

¶11

(i) to declare the inaction of the respondent no.4 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 07.11.2015 sent through SMS, to take appropriate action against the illegal construction being carried out at H.No.20-4-1215, Lad Bazaar, Charminar, as illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘GHMC Act’) and Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites Remains Act, 1958 ( for short, ‘Act, 1958) with a further direction to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to demolish all that existing illegal construction consisting of pillars and roof forming part of premises No.20-4-1215, situated at Lad Bazar, Hyderabad ; and

¶12

ii) to issue direction to respondents nos.6 and 7 not to proceed with any further construction in the subject premises.

¶13

2. Petitioners allege that the subject premises is within 50 feet distance of the historical Charminar and Macca Masjid. Charminar and Macca Masjid are protected monuments as per the provisions of the Act, 1958. No civil construction can be made without prior permission from the competent authority under the Act, 1958 and GHMC Act, whereas without obtaining permissions from the GHMC and competent authority under the Act, 1958, the 6^th and 7^th respondents are undertaking construction in the subject property. 3. By order dated 16.11.2015, respondents 6 and 7 were directed to stop construction of their shop forthwith. Respondents 2 to 4 were directed to ensure that no construction is raised by the respondents 6 and 7 or any other person if the construction is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1958.

¶14

4. Counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 and

¶15

respondent no.7.

¶16

5. Respondent no.7 denied his involvement. He claims to be the councilor representing the area and has good reputation. According to the 7^th respondent, he is no way concerned with the subject property and is falsely dragged into the litigation.

¶17

6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4, the allegations made by the petitioners are categorically denied. It is averred that they have taken all the steps to ensure no illegal construction is made by the 6^th respondent in the subject premises. Notice under Section 459 of the GHMC Act was served on the 6^th respondent and further action is being taken. It is also averred that 6^th respondent filed statement in writing stating that he would not make any illegal construction. It is also their stand that regular inspection being conducted to ensure that no further construction is taken up.

¶18

7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General placed on record the letter addressed by the Superintending Archaeologist dated 16.11.2015. To the said letter, notice dated 10.12.2015 is enclosed. The competent authority issued notice to the owner of the subject building calling upon to explain as to why penal action should not be taken against him on violation of the provisions of the Act, 1958 and Rules made there under read with amendment and Validation Act, 2010.

¶19

8. As seen from the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and the documents placed on record by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, the concerned authorities have set in motion action as warranted by GHMC Act and Act, 1958 against the 6^th respondent on alleged illegal construction in the subject premises. In view of the same no further orders need to be passed in this PIL and the same is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed.

¶20

___________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶21

___________________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 22.02.2016 kkm

¶22

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.339 of 2015

¶24

Date: 22.02.2016

¶25

kkm

Mohd Abdul Qader , Shafath v. The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Abdul Qader , Shafath v. The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad.

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

D.v.R.Raju, S/o Late Sri D.Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pragathi Pariyavarana Parirakshna Samithi, Vs Union of India

The Students of Boyyalagudem. Upper Primary School, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary

Vasantha Lakshmi Charitable Trust and Research Centre, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Indian Institute of Jeeva Karunyam and Research, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Shankar Naik, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Gandham Jaya Andhara Rastra Udaya Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gajagoni Yadaiah Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. V.V. Sai Naresh, Vs Union of India

Kallepelli Pranayadeep, Vs The State of Telangana, Its rep.bythe Principal Secretary

Sri M.v.Govindarajulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kattari Venkata Ramana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

V.Mohan Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its

Kondam Ravindar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary