Disposed

R. Sankar Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC16 Jun 2016WP/19013/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking declaration of illegal construction and demolition. Directing the authorities to treat a lawyer's notice as a formal representation, the court ordered them to hear the opposite party and pass an order within four weeks without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 3 and 4 directed to treat the notice dated 22.05.2016 as a representation, hear Respondent No.6, and pass orders within four weeks.

R. Sankar Narayana, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 19013 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.D.Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4. At the request of both the counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶5

2. Since this Court is not adjudicating the matter on merits, it is not necessary to issue notice to unofficial respondent No.7.

¶6

3. The present Writ Petition came to be filed with the following prayer:

¶7

“… to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in allowing the 6^th respondent in making construction of the building in Sy. No.305 in L.F. Road margin and in front of the petitioner’s land in Sy. No.301 opposite to Christian burial ground, Anantapur-Engineering college road, Anantapur town as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to take action for removal of the construction made by 6^th respondent in the above land and …”

¶8

4. Though various grounds are raised in the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks direction to the authorities to consider the representation dated

¶9

22.05.2016 submitted by the petitioner to respondents 3 to 5 seeking action against the illegal construction made by respondent No.6.

¶10

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that no representation has been made by the petitioner till date except issuing a lawyer’s notice dated 22.05.2016.

¶11

6. In view of the submissions made and having regard to the circumstances of the case, without going into merits of the case, respondents 3 and 4 are directed to treat the notice dated 22.05.2016 got issued by the petitioner as a representation and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the authorities shall hear respondent No.6 before passing any order on the representation.

¶12

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶13

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶14

16.06.2016

¶15

DRK

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶17

W.P.No.19013 of 2016

¶18

16.06.2016

R. Sankar Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sankar Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its 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 Lkp Infra Projects, Vs The State of Telangana

Immadi settyAjay Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Balaji Biradar s/o Dhanji Rao Biradar, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its

Kalam Anjireddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Venkateswara Institute of Science And Technology, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal

P.Mahamuda Begum D/o P.Usman All Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh