Disposed

G.Upender v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Aug 2020WP/12307/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the construction of public toilets allegedly blocking their shop access. The Court noted the Municipality had halted construction pending objections. Disposed the writ without costs, directing parties to work out an amicable solution ensuring public access and minimal petitioner harm.

What did the court decide?

Disposed giving liberty to parties to work out an amicable solution ensuring public toilets are constructed usefully while avoiding least possible damage to petitioners. No costs.

G.Upender Vs The State of Telangana — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶7

WRIT PETITION O:12307 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Q,Upelder, S/o.Papaiah, Aged about 57 years, Occ Business,

¶10

R/o.H.No.1-1-45718, Nehru Nagar, Suryapet town, Suryapet District.

¶11

G.Sravan, S/o.Narasimha Rao, Aged about 42 years, Occ Business, R/o.H.No. 1-2-27018713/3, Krishna Nagar colony, suryapet town, Suryapet District

¶12

J G,Vinqy Chander, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Age,d about 38 years, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-2701871312, Krishna Nagar Cbl ony, Suryapet town, Suryapet District

¶13

Lcgpt^{Krishna, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu,Aged about 36 years, OccBusiness,} Rio.H.No.1-2-2701871312, Krishna Nagar eolony, Surya-pet town, Suryapet District.

¶14

5 Anubothu Nageswara Rao,, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 32 years, Occ Vegetable Vendor, R/o.Kudakuda Road, Suryapet town, Suryapet Disfrict

¶15

6 9t^{ai[ Buran, S/o.Shaik Chand,Aged about 59 years, Occ Gas Repair Centre,} R/o.Kudakuda Road, Suryapet town, Suryapet District.

¶16

7 9nai!^{Dastagiri, S/o.ShaikAbbas, Aged about 52 years, Occ Tailor,} R/o.Kudakuda Road, Suryapet town, Suryapet District.

¶17

.PETITIONERS

¶18

AND

¶19

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶20

2 The District Collector, Suryapet Distrlct at Suryapet

¶21

J The Additional Collector, Suryapet District at Suryapet.

¶22

4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet Division, Suryapet District.

¶23

5 The Tahsildar, Suryapet lVandal, Suryapet District.

¶24

6 Suryapet lVunicipality, Suryapet town, Suryapet Distrlct, Rep. by its Commmissioner

¶25

7 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Suryapet lVunicipality, Suryapet District,

¶26

The Deputy Executive Engineer, R & B Deparlment, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of [Vandamus declaring the action of the respondents in constructing public toilet in front of the shops belonging to the petitioners 1lo 4 situated 100ft Kudakuda road leading from Suryapet to Dhanthalapally village thereby closing the access to the main road as the same is illegal and arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents not to make any construction of public toilets in front of the shops belonging to the petitioners.

Contd....

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in^{supportof the petition, tre High courl may be pleased to directthe} respondents not to^{proceed with the constructionof the public toilets in front of the} shops belonging^{to ifre petitioners1 to 4 situated 100ft Kudakuda road leading from} Suryapet to OfrJntfralapally^{village, pendingdisposal of the abovewrit petition'}

¶33

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRI A. PRABHAKARRAO}

¶34

counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶35

counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.6&7: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR,}

¶36

STANDING COUNSEL^{FOR MUNICIPALITY}

¶37

counsel for the^{Respondent No.8 GP FOR ROADS& BUILDINGS}

¶38

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶39

THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE^{CI{ALLAKODAND:ARAM}

¶40

WRIT PETITION No. 12307 of²⁰²⁰

¶41

ORDER

¶42

This Writ Petltion is filed^{seeking a mandamus to declare the} action of the respondents^{in constructingpublic toilets in front of the} shops belonging to^{Petitioners 1 to 4, adjacent to I00 feet Kudakuda} Road leading from Suryapet^{to DhanthalapallyVillage, closing the} access to the main^{road, as illegal and arbitrary'}

¶43

Heard learned counsel^{for the petitloners and learned Standing} Counsel for the^{respondent Municipality Sri N' Praveen Kumar, who,} on instructions, submits^{that consideringthe objeq,lionsraised by the} petitioners, the Murricipality had^{stoppedthe con,slructionof toilets} and that they would^{also take into considerationtheir representation} /^{objectionsdated 13.07.2020.} I^{,,, r,,r,}

¶44

Having regard to the^{fact that as on tqday, the objections/} representation of the^{petitioners being under cons!derationand as lt} is not for this court^{to decide whether the publictoilets are to be} constructed or^{not and if so, where, etcetera, tne Writ Petition is} disposed of^{giving liberty to both the partiesto work-out an amicable} solution, ensuring^{public toilets are constructed usefully to the pubiic} at large and at^{the same time, avoiding least possible damage to the} petitioners. No costs'

¶45

Asasequel,miscellaneouspetitIons,ifanY.pendinginthese writ petitions,^{shall standclosed}

¶46

SD/.K.MURALI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To, 1. T.he Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶49

The District Collector, Suryapet District at Suryapet

¶50

The Additional Collector, Suryapet District at Suryapet.

¶51

¶52

The^{Revenue Divisional officer, Suryapet Division, suryapetDistrict'}

¶53

5.TheTahsildar,SuryapetlVlandal,SuryapetDistrict.

¶54

The^{commissioner, suryapettrlunicipality,suryapet town,suryapet District}

¶55

7 . The^{Deputy Executive Engineer,suryapet lVlunicipality,suryapetDistrict'}

¶56

g.TheDeputyExecutiveEngineer,R&BDepartment'suryapet'suryapetDistrict

¶57

L One^{CC to Sri. A' Prabhakar Rao' AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶58

l0.oneC.C.toSri.N.PraveenKumar,StandingCounselfortr/unicipality(oPUC)

¶59

llTwoCCstoGPforRevenue,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat'HYderabad. [OUT]

¶60

12.Two^{CCsto GP for Roads and Buildings, High Courtfor the State of Telangana} lourl

13.Two^{CD CoPies}

Prk

HIGH COURT

DATED:11 10812020

f sE s
^ ,f
ou 2 1 AUG 2ff20
* i
I
tr-l

¶67

ORDER

¶68

WP.No.12307 of 2020

¶69

Disposing of the WP. without costs.

¶70

.^rr-* rn

G.Upender v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Upender 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

Thungam Venkaiah and 2 Others Vs the State of Telanagana and 6 Others

Nanna Umadevi Vs The State of Telangana

Yapachettu Balaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Nayeemuddin Vs State of Telangana

Sirigiri Narsaiah Vs the State of Telangana

M/s Edsmart Global LLP and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others