Single judge issued a writ of Mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, to dispose of a representation dated 18.03.2016 regarding illegal public road encroachment within four weeks, mandating prior hearing of interested parties.
Direction to dispose of representation within four weeks after hearing all parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 21481 of 2016
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No.3 in not preventing/stopping illegal construction of house made by respondent No.5 encroaching upon the public road to an extent of 50 square yards at plot No.80, situated in Survey Nos.40 and 41 at Bandlaguda Village, Nagole and initiating construction activities at plot No.80, situated in Survey Nos.40 and 41 at Bandlaguda Village, Nagole without obtaining any permission from the competent authorities as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitution and contrary to the law envisaged under Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and pass such other order or orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”
Though various grounds are raised, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, to dispose of the representation dated 18.03.2016, made by the petitioner seeking appropriate action against respondent No.5, who raised building encroaching upon the public road.
Sri Pasam Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, submits that the said representation may be taken and dealt with in accordance with law, if the same is pending.
Having regard to the circumstances stated above and
without going into merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to dispose of the representation dated 18.03.2016 made by the petitioner complaining against the encroachments made by respondent No.5, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. It is needles to mention that before passing any orders, the authorities shall hear the petitioner and the unofficial respondent herein.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
_______________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
01.07.2016 vhb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to a direction to the third respondent to dispose of the representation regarding illegal construction by respondent No.5 within four weeks.
Whether the authorities have a duty to hear the petitioner and unofficial respondent before passing orders in the encroachment matter.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Respondent No.5
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
