The Court dismissed a writ petition for mandamus seeking to quash a construction permission. It held that since the petitioner had an alternative remedy, the petition could not be entertained.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36670 OF 2017
O R D E R :
This petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the construction permission bearing permit No.211/2016-17, dated 22.11.2016, issued by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
Admittedly, petitioner has alternative remedy against granting of impugned permission in favour of 3rd respondent. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings by availing alternative remedy as may be available to him under law. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
02.11.2017 t k.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus to declare a construction permission illegal and set it aside is maintainable when an alternative remedy exists.
Petitioner
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
