Dismissed

V. Vijay Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Aug 2020WP/11468/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, via Justice Challa Kodanda Ram, disposed of three miscellaneous petitions filed by V. Vijay Reddy concerning alleged illegal construction by Bende Sunitha in Gajwel Municipality. The court accepted that the grievance was regarding non-consideration of objections and directed action strictly in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to take action strictly in accordance with law on the petitioner's representation without further adjudication on the site details.

V. Vijay Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 11468 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

V. Vijay Reddy, S/o V. Pratap Reddy, Aged 35^years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2-80, Burgpaly Village, Gajwel ftrlandal, Siddipet District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, l/unicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

Gajwel Municipality, Rep. by its [\ilunicipal Commissioner, Gajwel - Pragnapur, Siddipet District.

¶12

Public lnformation Officer, Gajwel - Pragnapur Municipality, Siddipet District.

¶13

Bende Sunitha, W/o lVladhu, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Simgatam Village, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of l,4andamus challenging the inaction of the Respondents particularly Respondents No.2 herein in not considering the representation of the Petrtioner dt.27-06-2020 requesting the 2nd Respondent to stop construction and demolish the illegal structures constructed by the 4th Respondent in Sy.No.488, Pragnapur, Gajwel tVunicipality, Siddipet District, which construction is without any building permission of the 2nd Respondent herein as admitted by the 3rd Respondent vide Proceeding No.10/RTl/2020, dt. 1B07-2020 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Petitioners fundamental rights under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and constitutional right under Article 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and to consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the Petrtioner's representation dt.27-06-2020 and stop the construction and demolish existing illegal structure in 4th Respondent's Plot in Sy.No.4BB, Pragnapur, Gajwel lVlunicipallty, Siddipet District in the rnterest of Justice.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petjtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent Commissioner, to direct the 4th Respondent herein to stop all constructions in Sy.No.488, Praganpur, Gajwel I,4unicipality, Siddipet District and demolish the illegal structures in Sy.No.4BB, praganpur, Gajwel Ir/unicipality, Siddipet District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dt. 27-062O2O and stop the construction and demolish existing illegal structure in 4th Respondent's Plot in Sy.No.4BB, Pragnapur, Gajwel lvunicipality, Siddipet District, in the interest of Justice pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

lA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner herein to file the additional material documents as pad parcel of the main WP.No.11468 of 2020.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B. MAYUR REDDY

¶23

counsel for the Respondent No.1:GP FoR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶25

SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:--

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 11468 of 2O2O

¶29

oRplER

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamas to declare the inaction of the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent on the representation of the petitioner dated 27.06.2020 requesting to stop construction and demolish the illegal structures raised by the 4th respondent in Survey No. 4BB, Pragnapur, Gajwel Municipallty, Siddipet Distrlct, without obtaining building permission from the 2nd respondent, as admitted by the 3'd respond ent vide proceedings dated 18.07.2020 as arbitrary and illegal.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent is making construction without applying for building permission and the said fact is confirmed by the 3'd respondent - Public Information Officer under the letter dated 18,07.2020.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶33

Learned Standing Counsel for the znd respondent Sri N, Praveen Kumar, on lnstructions, submits that the 4th respondent is making construction in 70 square yards of site and in the light of sub-section⁽¹⁾ of Section 1.74 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, no^{prior permission} is required if ground + one floor is raised, He further submits that the^4th respondent had also submitted an Applicalion on /ine on 07.06.2020, written Application on 30.07.2020, but however, as on date, construction has been stopped,

¶34

Recording the above-said submissions of the learned^Standing Counsel, as the grievance of the^petitioner is non-consideration of^his objections / representation dated 27.06.2020,^{the Writ Petition is disposedof}

¶35

¶36

to take action strictly in accordance with law on the said representation. No

¶37

costs

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/-K.MURALI

ASSISTANT REGIST-M(N

//TRUE COPY/

sECroN W{rr".*

To,

The Principal Secretary, [Vlunicipal^{Administration and Urban Development} Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat^{Buildings, Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶45

The tt/lunicipal Commissioner, Gajwel^{lVunicipality, Gajwel - Pragnapur,} Siddipet District.

¶46

Public lnformation Officer, Gajwel^{- Pragnapur[Vunicipality,Siddipet} District.

¶47

One CC to Sri B. [\4ayur Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

One CC to Sri N.Praveen Kumar, SC^{for [/unicipality,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶49

Two CCs to GP for N/unicipal Administration and^{Urban Development,} High Court for the State of Telangana at^Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶50

Two CD Copies

SM \ l--"

HIGH COURT

CKRJ

DATED:06/08/2020

ORDER

WP.No.11468 ol 2020

Jtst.
cv OF TE
F.
"t
).
rr "$
_i O
$"$'
J
i
9tt{ *

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE^WP

¶59

WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

V. Vijay Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Vijay Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Meridian Crop Science Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s. Elite Crop Care Vs The State of Telangana and another

Shivashakthi Bio Technologies Limited. Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Bantu Ram Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ruhaina Apartments Owners Welfare Society and 5 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Jonna Raji Reddy Vs The State of Telangana