The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging inaction regarding illegal construction. Since the Commissioner initiated proceedings based on the petitioners' complaint, no further orders were necessary, and the petition was closed.
The writ petition is closed; no order as to costs.
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 SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.34088 of 2013
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not taking any action on the representations dated 12.11.2013 made pointing out the illegal and unauthorised constructions made by the 4th respondent in H.No.3-5-6/ B, Near Max Muller Bhavan, Ramkoti, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal.
The case of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent without leaving any set backs, started her construction in the subject property and the official respondents are not taking any action against the 4th respondent, in spite of repeated representations/ complaints.
Learned standing counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioners have submitted a complaint against the illegal construction of building D.No.3-5-6/ B, near Max Muller Bhavan, Ramkote by the 4th respondent; pursuant to the said complaint, the officials of the Corporation have inspected the site and found that the 4th respondent deviated the sanctioned plan; the respondentCorporation stopped further construction work by the 4th respondent and issued show cause notice dated 25.06.2014 to her under Section 452(1) and 461(1) of HMC Act, 1955; in response thereto, the 4th respondent handed over a copy of the status-quo orders dated 01.05.2014 granted in I.A.No.360 of 2014 in OS No.711 of 2014 by the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; the respondentCorporation is taking steps to get the status quo order vacated.
As the respondent-Corporation initiated action against the 4th respondent basing on the complaint of the petitioners, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition.
The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_______________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J_
Date: 10.12.2018 BSS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging inaction regarding illegal construction requires disposal when the underlying authority has initiated action.
Petitioners (unnamed)
4th respondent
Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
