Disposed

Sri.Bobba Prasad v. the Principal Secretary

Telangana HC11 Jul 2016WP/22222/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition at the admission stage without adjudicating merits, directing the Commissioner of GHMC to consider pending representations from the petitioner within two weeks while hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.09.2015 within two weeks, hearing all parties before acting.

Sri.Bobba Prasad Vs the Principal Secretary — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22222 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1; Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.2; and Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for Caveatorrespondent No.3. With consent of the counsel appearing for both sides, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶5

Since this Court is not adjudicating the matter on merits, hearing of the unofficial respondent may not be necessary.

¶6

2. The present writ petition came to be filed with the following prayer:

¶7

“to issue an appropriate a Writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or order or direction declaring the inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent-Commissioner, GHMC, in not taking any action against the Complaints made by the petitioner herein on 16.09.2015 and also on 09.10.2015 and thereby not taking any steps either to recall/cancel the permission granted in favour of the 3^rd respondent in respect of the subject land viz., land admeasuring 885 square yards situated in Premises No.6-3-674/1, Panjagutta, Hyderabad or to stop the Ongoing construction activity therein, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.”

¶8

3. Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking a

¶9

direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the requests made by the petitioner by way of complaints/representations dated 16.09.2015 and 09.10.2015.

¶10

4. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the unofficial respondents are proceeding with the construction without obtaining necessary permission. The same is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶11

5. Having regard to the above and without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing 2^nd respondent to consider the representation dated 16.09.2015, if it is still pending consideration, in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to mention that before passing any orders on the representation, the 2^nd respondent shall hear the petitioner also the unofficial respondents herein.

¶12

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶14

Date:11.07.2016 INL

Sri.Bobba Prasad v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Bobba Prasad v. the 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

Md.Saleha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Inampudi Sandeep, Vs The Station House Officer

V. Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kola Hanumantha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Vasavi Minerals Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt. Padala Sri Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh