Dismissed

S.Keshav S/o.late Sri S.Kantayya, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Apr 2018WP/32655/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for writ of Mandamus challenging illegal construction by 4th Respondent filed against Respondents 2 and 3. Court noted Respondents 2 and 3 lack jurisdiction; Court directs 5th Respondent to consider representation instead. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to submit representation to the 5th respondent.

S.Keshav S/o.late Sri S.Kantayya, Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.32655 of 2016

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶6

The prayer in the writ petition is as under:

¶7

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in not taking any action on the representation of the petitioner dated 09.09.2016 against the illegal construction raising by the 4^th respondent by encroaching into the public road as well as drainage channel under premises bearing plot No.53, Road No.12, IDA Katedan, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder, and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to demolish the illegal constructions raising by the 4^th respondent over the subject property, immediately and forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶8

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that as far as the industrial area, Katedan, is concerned, the 5^th respondent alone has got jurisdiction to grant permission and supervise the constructions made therein. However, the petitioner appears to have submitted representation dated 09.09.2016 to respondent Nos.2 and 3, who, admittedly, have no jurisdiction over the industrial area. On this the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will make a representation to the 5^th respondent against the illegal constructions raised by the 4^th respondent by encroaching the public road as well as drainage channel under premises bearing Plot No.53, Road No.12, IDA Katedan, Hyderabad. In these circumstances, this Court feels that no cause would survive in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

¶10

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation to the 5^th respondent upon which the 5^th respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶12

____________________________ JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO

¶13

Date: 24.04.2018. ES

S.Keshav S/o.late Sri S.Kantayya, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Keshav S/o.late Sri S.Kantayya, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

B Rama Goud Vs Prl. Secy., Excise Dept.and 7 Ors.

V.Sambasiva Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

B.Venkatesham Goud, Son of Durga Goud Vs Government of Telangana