Single judge ordered respondents not to demolish petitioners' structures or widen the road without issuing notice and following due process of law, disposing the writ petition.
Directed respondents not to demolish structures or widen road without issuing notice and following due process of law.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.36142 OF 2017
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that petitioners are having business premises and existing road of 66” feet is existing and passing through their side of the premises. Now, the respondent-authorities are trying to widen the road existing without following due process of law. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
This Court on 30-10-2017 granted interim order not to demolish the structures of the petitioners without following due process of law.
Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the 4th respondent along with municipality is only removing encroachments that too after following due process of law.
In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to demolish the structures of the petitioners without issuing notice by following due process of law. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
02-11-2017
Note:
Issue CC by tomorrow. B/o. Nvl
2
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents can widen the road and demolish petitioner's structures without issuing notice and following due process of law.
Petitioners
Respondent-authorities
4th Respondent
Municipality
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
