Disposed

L. Satishwer Reddy v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC22 Jun 2016WP/19861/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of Writ Petition at admission stage directing municipal authorities to consider petitioner's representation regarding illegal construction and pass appropriate orders within four weeks after hearing petitioner and unofficial respondent.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on petitioner's representation dated 23.06.2016 in accordance with law within four weeks.

L. Satishwer Reddy Vs The State of Telangana… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 19861 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking the following prayer:

¶5

“… to issue any appropriate writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in not taking any action against the 5^th respondent in making illegal construction without sanctioned permission and contrary to building permission and layout rules, and without leaving setbacks pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, dated 23.03.2016 and 02.06.2016 and pass…”

¶6

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Keshava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4. At the request of both the counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. Since this Court is not deciding the case on merits, it may not be necessary to hear respondent No.6.

¶7

3. Though various grounds are urged in the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to consider representation made by the petitioner dated 23.05.2016 at the earliest since the neighbourer is proceeding with the constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan violating all laws. The

¶8

learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submits that the said representation is pending consideration and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 23.06.2016 made by the petitioner 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, after hearing the petitioner and also the unofficial respondent No.5.

¶9

4. 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.

¶10

______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶11

22.06.2016 DRK

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶13

W.P.No.19861 of 2016

¶14

22.06.2016

L. Satishwer Reddy v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L. Satishwer Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Subba Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Rajesh Reddy Vankuri, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dhrudala Raghavender, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep by its Principal

A.Srinivasarao , Swamulu, Vs The State of A.P.

Singoori Pandu, Vs The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretar

M. Malla Reddy Vs Revisional Authority, Ministry of Mines