Disposed

U.v.Suresh Kumar, v. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC10 Jun 2016WP/17940/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition without examining merits, directing the respondent authorities to promptly consider the petitioner's complaint dated 22.03.2016 regarding illegal construction and hear all parties before passing an order.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondent No.2 to consider the complaint dated 22.03.2016, hear all parties, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

U.v.Suresh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17940 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not taking any action on the complaint made by the petitioner on 22.03.2016 with regard to the illegal and unauthorized construction made by the 5^th respondent on the pathway in active collusion with 6^th respondent, who is the President of B.N. Reddy Colony Welfare Association, situated at Street No.2, B.N. Reddy Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶5

Heard the petitioner, being a party-in-person, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.1, and also Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Since the request of the petitioner is only to consider his complaint dated 22.03.2016, it is not necessary to hear the un-official respondents.

¶6

Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, submits that the complaint dated 22.03.2016 filed by the petitioner is still pending and the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶7

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the complaint dated 22.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that respondent No.2 shall hear the petitioner as well as unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 before passing any order on the complaint dated 22.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶8

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶9

_____________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶10

10.06.2016. Msr

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.17940 of 2016

¶13

10.06.2016 Msr

U.v.Suresh Kumar, v. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.v.Suresh Kumar, v. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary

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

M/ s. Bhuvaneswari Traders, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Kasibatta Narayana Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Late M. Dashratth Reddy, Vs The Station House Officer

Sri. G.Rama Swamy, Vs the State of Telangana

Harshith Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

V. Anuradha Devi, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal