Disposed

M/s. v.S.Constructions(Adi Builders), v. The Chief Managing Director

Telangana HC25 Jul 2016WP/24413/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a proposed shift of an electricity line affecting the petitioner's land. The court directed the 2nd respondent to consider a representation filed on 15.07.2016 and pass appropriate orders within one month before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 15.07.2016 and pass orders within one month.

M/s. v.S.Constructions(Adi Builders), Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24413 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents proposing to shift the existing 33 KVA HT over head line from its existing place i.e., passing over the lands of Ms. Nemali Rajeswari, W/o Venkateswara Reddy, DE, APSPDCL, Ms. Adi Laksmi, W/o Balaramireddy, DE, APSPDCL, Ms. Chepparapu Sati Devi, W/o Papireddy situated on the back side of Kakatiya Residency in Sy.No.171/A, T.S.D.No.393/B, APHB Colony extension, Nallapadu, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P, and bring it aligned to pass through power construction of Bavani paradise and other constructions nearby as illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the 2^nd Respondent to consider and take appropriate action on the representation dated 15.07.2016 submitted by the petitioner and other residents and complex Builders.

¶5

2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶6

3 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent on 15.07.2016. The only request of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the said representation.

¶7

4 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already made a representation to the 2^nd respondent on 15.07.2016, the 2^nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the said representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶8

5 With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶9

order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶10

_____________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶11

Date: 25.07.2016 Kvsn

M/s. v.S.Constructions(Adi Builders), v. The Chief Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. v.S.Constructions(Adi Builders), v. The Chief Managing Director

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

Padala Srinivasa Rao Vs Madireddy Adinarayana

M.Madhuri, Vs N.Madhava Naidu

J. Suchitha, Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation

K. Bhaskar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jeejula Sagar Vs The State of Telangna

Nagaraju Venkayamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh