Allowed

Smt. Koyalkar Nandani ,Nandha, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Apr 2016WP/13745/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a writ petition directing municipal authorities to consider the petitioner's application for house repairs after a format objection. The court directed the authority to inform the petitioner of required documents, allow rectification, reject only with recorded reasons, and decide within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the petition, directed municipal authorities to consider the representation after informing the petitioner of required documents and decide within two weeks.

Smt. Koyalkar Nandani ,Nandha, Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13745 OF 2016

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

The prayer of the petitioner in this case is as under:

¶5

“Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Order, Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in not disposing the representation dated 22.02.2016 submitted by the petitioner seeking permission for fixation of Door and minor repairs to the walls in the house bearing No.13-3-790, Jiaguda, Lakshminarasimha Nagar, Hyderabad, Telengana State as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

Sri N. Rishi Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, would submit that the petitioner’s representation dated 22.02.2016 is not in the proper format and therefore, the authorities have not taken action thereon.

¶7

It is not open to the municipal authorities to brush aside an application on the short ground that it is not in conformity with the norms. If there is any such lacuna, it is for the municipal authorities to inform the applicant of the same so that he/she would take necessary steps to rectify such shortfall.

¶8

The petitioner’s representation dated 22.02.2016 shall therefore be considered by the municipal authorities and in the event any shortfall is noticed therein, the municipal authorities shall immediately communicate to the petitioner as to what documents, if any, are required to be submitted. If such a shortfall is rectified, the municipal authorities shall take appropriate action on the application. If the petitioner’s request for permission is rejected, the reasons therefor shall be duly recorded and communicated to her. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Pending

¶10

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶11

______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶12

Date: 22.04.2016 va

Smt. Koyalkar Nandani ,Nandha, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Koyalkar Nandani ,Nandha, 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

Katreddy Surendra Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Tatiparthi John Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Ravinder Goud Vs The State of Telangana

D. Neeraja Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Siddiq Unnisa Vs The State of Telangana

D.Kantha Vs The State of Telangana