Partly allowed

M/s. Gmr Ads v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Oct 2019WP/22270/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of multiple writ petitions by a partnership firm challenging a notice for removal of bus shelters. The Court found the 72-hour explanation timeline insufficient, directed submission of explanations within two weeks, stayed coercive removal pending consideration, and reserved appropriate orders. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Stayed coercive removal; directed submission of explanation within two weeks for consideration; reserved appropriate orders.

M/s. Gmr Ads Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 22258, 22259, 22260, 22261, 22262, 22263, 22264, 22265, 22266, 22267, 22269, 22270, 22271, 22272, 22273, 22274, 22275, 22276, 22277, 22278, 22279, 22280 & 22281 of 2019 COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Since the parties are common and the issue involved in all these writ petitions is similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶4

The petitioner is a partnership firm. The case of the petitioner is that it was issued the impugned notices by the Advertisement Officer, GHMC, 4^th respondent herein, to show cause as to why the bus shelters erected by it should not be removed within 72 hours. In response to the said notices, the petitioner has submitted its explanation through registered post. However, without considering the same, the respondents are trying to take coercive steps for removal of the subject bus shelters erected by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri L. Venkateswara Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶6

The learned Standing Counsel for the GHMC submits that as on today, they have not received any explanation to the impugned show cause notices from the petitioner.

¶7

It is to be seen that in the impugned show cause notices only grant 72 hours time to the petitioner for submission of explanation, which is absolutely insufficient.

¶8

¶9

Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a copy of the explanations to the impugned show cause notices, in person, to the 4^th respondent, within two weeks from today and on such submission, the 4^th respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Till passing of such orders, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents for removal of the subject bus shelters erected by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶11

closed.

¶12

___________________________
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
Date: 10.10.2019
SJ/JSU

¶13

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶15

WRIT PETITION Nos. 22258, 22259, 22260, 22261, 22262, 22263, 22264, 22265, 22266, 22267, 22269, 22270, 22271, 22272, 22273, 22274, 22275, 22276, 22277, 22278, 22279, 22280

¶16

and 22281 of 2019

¶17

Date: 10.10.2019

¶18

SJ/JSU

M/s. Gmr Ads v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Gmr Ads v. The 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

Nishant Gupta S/o Purushottam Lal Gupta Vs Union of India

Master G.Vineeth, Vs The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource

M/s. Transgene Biotek Ltd. Vs The Chairman and Managing Director and 3 others

M/s. Gmr Ads. Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

M/s. Gmr Ads Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Gmr Ads Vs The State of Telangana