Disposed

A. Bala Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Apr 2018WP/16190/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging inaction regarding unauthorized telecommunication towers, the High Court directed the second respondent corporation to consider objections after serving notices to all parties and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondent Corporation directed to consider objections after giving notices and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

A. Bala Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.16190 of 2016

¶2

ORDER

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent Corporation.

¶4

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, seeking to declare the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in stopping the illegal and unauthorised erection of Telecommunication Infrastructure Towers by the 3^rd respondent at the premises of 4^th respondent building as arbitrary, illegal and voilative of guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.146 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M2) Department dated 19.06.2015, issued by the 1^st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioners dated 25.04.2016, while granting permission to the 3^rd respondent.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are residents of Hanuman Temple Road, Ramalingeswara Rao Nagar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. After coming to know about the proposal of erecting a telecommunication infrastructure by the 3^rd respondent, on the building of the 4^th respondent, the petitioners along with others have raised an objection on 25.04.2016 before the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No. 146 dated 19.06.2015, framing comprehensive guidelines for issuing permission for laying telecommunication infrastructure towers. As per the said G.O., there are restrictions for erection of telecommunication infrastructure towers.

¶6

¶7

In the case on hand, the respondent No.2 has not considered the objections raised by the locality people, including the petitioners herein. Therefore, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent, in considering the objections raised in the representation dated 25.04.2016, the present writ petition is filed.

¶8

Per contra, the learned standing counsel, representing the 2^nd respondent Corporation would submit that the objections raised by the petitioners for erection of telecommunication infrastructure towers will be considered, after giving notices to the petitioners as well as the respondents 3 and 4.

¶9

In the light of the statement made by the learned standing counsel, appearing for the 2^nd respondent Corporation and also looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent states that the towers are already in operation, the 2^nd respondent Corporation is hereby directed to consider the objections of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 146 dated 19.06.2015, after giving notices to the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order in the Writ Petition, as per law.

¶10

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶11

The Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

__________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J

¶13

Dated: 23.04.2018 JR

¶14

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.16190 of 2016

¶17

Dated: 23.04.2018

¶18

¶19

A. Bala Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Bala Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

N. Purna Chandra Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Thallapally Jayapal, S/o. T.George Vs State of Telangana

Yerubandi Karuna, Vs The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and

Smt.P.Malathi W/o. P.Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana

N. Sri Venkateswara Swamy, Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Arif, Vs The State of A.P.