Disposed

Atul J Shah v. The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration And

Telangana HC28 Jun 2016WP/20697/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition challenging inaction by respondents regarding illegal constructions by respondent No.5. The court directed respondents 3 and 4 to initiate action on the petitioner's representation dated 26.05.2016 within six weeks, ensuring due process through a personal hearing before any order is passed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be given personal hearing on representation dated 26.05.2016 before any order passed; noticed authorities to act within six weeks.

Atul J Shah Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 20697 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition came to be filed with the following

¶5

prayer:

¶6

“…to issue an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not considering the representations/ complaints dated 10.09.2015, 20.05.2016, 23.05.2016, 26.,05.2016 and not initiating any action against the respondent No.5 for making illegal constructions in premises No.4-4-884/4, Prembagh, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, and in violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to initiate necessary action for preventing further illegal construction in premises No.4-4-884/4, Prembagh, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad and to remove the illegal construction already made and to pass..”

¶7

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 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 unofficial respondent No.5.

¶8

3. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that though he gave representations dated 10.09.2015, 20.05.2016, 23.05.2016 and 26.05.2016 complaining about the illegal constructions undertaken by respondent

¶9

No.5 in the premises No.4-4-884/4, Prembagh, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, the respondents 2 to 4 have not initiated any action against the illegal constructions made by respondent No.5.

¶10

4. Though various grounds are urged in the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representations dated 10.09.2015, 20.05.2016, 23.05.2016 and 26.05.2016 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 states that the respondents 2 to 4 have already initiated steps by issuing notice to respondent No.5 and if the representations made by the petitioner are still pending, necessary action will be taken pursuant thereto.

¶11

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 3 and 4 to act on the representation dated 26.05.2016 made by the petitioner bringing to their notice the illegal constructions made by respondent No.5 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, if the said representation is pending and no appropriate action as per law has already been initiated. It is needless to mention that the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 shall be given personal hearing

¶12

before any order is passed on the said representation. 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

28.06.2016 DRK

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶16

W.P.No.20697 of 2016

¶17

28.06.2016

Atul J Shah v. The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration And

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul J Shah v. The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration And

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

V. Parameswari Vs C. Nagarathnamma

Dr. a. Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

M. Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Telangana.

Manchini Santhosh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Badavath Padma Vs The State of Telangana

M Doraswamy Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh