Dismissed

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

Telangana HC6 Aug 2020WP/12177/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the erection of a Foot Over Bridge (FOB) in front of their apartment, claiming it caused obstruction and inconvenience. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Court cannot substitute the executive's opinion on location due to the larger public utility of FOBs to avoid traffic chaos. It noted that some FOBs are unused due to steep stairs and directed authorit

What did the court decide?

High Court declined to interfere with the location of the Foot Over Bridge, directing only that minimal inconvenience be caused during construction and noted need for ramps in future FOBs.

M/s. Ruhaina Apartments Owners Welfare… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (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: 12177 AF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

It//s. Ruhaina Apartments Owners Welfare Society, Office at R/o.H.No.12-13-1236, Ruhalna Apartments, Tarnaka, Beside St. Anns School, Hyderabad, Telangana, rep. by its Secretary i.e., Ranji Ninan Varkey, S/o. Late V.M.Ninan, aged about 53 years, No. D-202, Ruhalna Apartments, Street No.9, Beside St.Anna School, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-50001 7.

¶8

Ramu Peddi, S/o. Paramesha Peddi, Aged about 40^years, Occ. Business, Ro. H.No.12-13-1236, Ruhaina Apartments, Fiat No. B-102, Tamaka, Beside St. Anna School, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶9

Nimesh [Vahendra Dedhia, S/o. ti/ahendra Dedhia Aged about 45 years, Occ, Business, R/o.H.No.1 2-13-1236, Ruhalna Apartments, Flat No. A- 101, Tarnaka, Beside St. Anna School, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶10

Srinivas Vuppala, S/o. Vuppala Pandurangam, Aged about 53 Plus years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.12-13-1236, Ruhaina Apartments, Flat No. A- 104, Tarnaka, Beside St. Anna School, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶11

Andol Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Late Andol [/]anaiah, Aged about 68^years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.12-5-103141311, Sree Amrutha Nilayam, Vijayapuri Colony, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, Telangana.

¶12

6, Chandishwar,V, S/o. Pentalah.V, Aged about 55^years, Occ. Business, R/o,H.No.12-13-1236, Ruhalna Apartments, Flat No. A-105, Tarnaka, Beside St. Anna School, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary^tt/unicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Greater Hyderabad lVunicipal Corporation, Rep. by Commissioner, office at BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad, Telangana 500054.

¶17

The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad [t/unicipal^Corporation, Secunderabad, Telangana.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^{Court maybe} pleased to pass an Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of lt/andamus. a. declaring the action of Respondents 2 and 3, in errecting^the foot over brindge FOB in front of^petitioners apartment entrance,^{preventing the} entry, use and causing great lnconvenience to 74^{families/tMedical} Clinics/Shops and their lives without leaving set backs,^{intentionallyand} malafidely avoiding the suitable, alternative and best^{useful places whichare} very much available in the vacinity is illegal, arbitrary and^violationof fundamental rights particularly Articals 21 and 3004 of Constitutulon^{of lnfda} and b. consequently direct the Respondents not to errect^{the foot over bridge} in front of entrance of the petitloners apartment and lay the^{same in earlier} fixed best location in between schools and collages^{in the interest of justice.}

¶20

lA NO: 1 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 stop the errection of the foot over bridge in front of the petitioners apartment entrance, preventing the entry, use and causing great inconvenience to 74 families/Medical Clinics/Shops and causing a great inconvenience to their lives pending disposal of the above writ petition-

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SUDARSHAN MALUGARI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI CHATLA MADHU,

¶25

SC FOR GHMC

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'^{BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDARAM}

¶28

WRIT PETITION^{No. 12177 of 20?0}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ Petition^{is flled seeking a mandamus to declare the action of} Respondents^{2 and 3 in erecting the Foot over Bridge (FOB) in front of the} petitioner's apaftment^{entrance,without leaving setbacks, thereby causing} obstruction to^{entry and use, apart from causinggreatinconvenienceto the} lives of 74^{families in the apartment, medical clinics and shops; and} intentionally^{avoiding the suitable, alternative sites locatedin the vicinity for} the^{purpose of FOB,as mala fide, illegaland arbitrary'}

¶31

HeardlearnedcounselforthepetitioneraswellaslearnedStanding CounselfortherespondentCorporationSrlChatlaMadhu,

¶32

ThegrievanceofthepetitioneristhattheFoBsoughttobe constructed^{is likely to cause inconvenience to the flat owners / occupants of} the apartment^{complex, robblng theirprivacyand creating safetyproblems'} As,essentiallyandindisputably,therequirementoferectionofFoBisto avoid traffic^{chaos, this Court cannot substituteits opinionwithrespect to} location of^{the FOB merelyon account of some inconveniencelikely to be} caused to^{the petitioner or others, Either to the petitioneror to the other} parties, wherever^{it is to be located,there would be some inconvenience'as} there is^{no option other than to bearthe inconvenience considering the larger} uulity of^{FoB which would avoid haphazard crossingof the road' more} par[icularly when^{large population has not been accustomedto using zebra-} crossing^{which by themselvesis not in existence on accountof the apathy of} the municipal^{as wellas police authorities. There is also no requirement of} mentioning^{the basic ctvic sense lackingin the publicwhlch appears to have} not been^{inculcatedfrom the school level by the authorities'andtherebeing} noefforttocultivatethehabitswhicharerequiredofagoodcrtizen'As stated earlier,^{as this Court cannot substitute its opinion with respectto}

¶33

¶34

location, no interference can be made. However, it is needress to mention that the respondent authorities shall carry out the work ensuring that minimal inconvenience is caused, to either the petitioner or other passersby.

¶35

in the context of construction of FOBs across the city, this Court does not hesitate to add one aspect which is graringly visible. A large number of FOBs are not being used by the public at large mainly on account oF the steepness of the steps the people are required to climb, which makes it difficult more particularly for women and elderly people. In the absence of there being a ramp or escalator system, the FOBs which are constructed at huge costs are not being used; and the corporation might not have received any complaints or the protests from the publlc at large which is typical of the Indian Society of not complaining and putting up with all kinds of inconveniences notwithstanding the sufferance. This court hopes and trusts that the Corporation will bestow its attention and consider these aspects in future.

¶36

The Writ Petition is disposed of subject to the above.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶38

To,

¶39

SD/.I.NAGA HMI ASSISTAN R ISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶40

l The Principar secretarv rvlunicipar Administration and Urban Deveropment, state of Tetangana, Sdcretariai ifvO"irr"j. '""^.

¶41

1. The Commissioner. Greatej Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, office vrPo' L at BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad, ier;ng;;; stijbd

¶42

The Zonal Commrssioner, Greater Hyderabad I\4unicipal Corporation, Secunderabad, Telangana.

¶43

One CC to Sri Sudarshan Malugari, Advocate tOpUCl

¶44

One CC to Sri Chafla Madhu, SC for GHMC, Advocate IOPUCI

¶45

Two CCs to Gp for Arlunicipal Administration and Urban Development. Hish courr ror the State "r%rril;;;;iiijo;lili.,iourr

¶46

Two CD Copies

Sffi *f,I

HI cou RT

DATED:0610812020

ORDE R

WP .No.1i 2'177 ot 2020

¶53

':..
1 hl e S Th
o 2 5 AUG 2020
* *

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WP

¶55

WITHOUT COSTS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

V. Vijay Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Bantu Ram Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Jonna Raji Reddy Vs The State of Telangana