Disposed

T. Ramu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Mar 2017WP/10489/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Municipal Corporation and Collector to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2017 regarding the 4th Respondent's encroachment of a public road and take appropriate action within four weeks, disposing the petition without deliberating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the representation dated 30.01.2017 and take appropriate action within four weeks.

T. Ramu Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10489 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents 2 and 3 for not initiating action agianst the 4^th respondent, who blocked the public municipal Road No.6 leading to Raghavanagar Colony, Tirumalahills Colony/ Jail Colony, Meerpet, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the repsodnents 2 and 3 to lay the RCC road.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for 1^st respondent.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent has encroached the public municipal road and blocked the same by placing Hillocks, stones, brciks, sludge and sand bags, due to which the petitioner and his family members and the other residents are facing inconvience and unbearable hardship. The petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents 2 and 3 to take action against the 4^th resopdnent, but the respondents 2 and 3 did not take any action so far. Ultimately the petitioner got issued a complaint to the respndents 2 and 3 and the Station House Officer, Meerpet Police Station and also the President of the Welfare Association, on 30.01.2017, but no steps are taken to consider the complaint/ representation of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bringing all these aspects to the notice of the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner submitted a complaint/ representation dated 30.01.2017, but the respondents 2 and 3 failed to take any action so far.

¶8

¶9

Since the grievance of the petitioner is for consideration and disposal of his representation/ complaint dated 30.01.2017, the writ petition can be disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation/ complaint dated 30.03.2017 submitted by the petitioner and take action in accordance with law, if there are any violations committed by the 4^th respondent, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶10

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.Ps if any pending shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶11

_____________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
March 23, 2017
KTL

¶12

T. Ramu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Ramu v. The State of Telangana

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

Sree Veera Saiva Sangha, Vs The State of A.P.

Smt.M.Aswini, Vs State of Telangana

M/s Sri Hema Durga Constructions, Vs The State of Telangana

M. Srikanth Goud, Vs The State of Telangana

Kappa Parvathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Revuri Sarojini Devi , Sarojana, Vs The State of Telangana