Disposed

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

Telangana HC11 Aug 2020WP/12313/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed a writ petition challenging demolition notice issued to leaseholders. Court directed authorities to consider pending representations and take action against owners only after following law, referencing prior orders on the same premises.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to authorities to consider the petitioners' representation dated 31.07.2020 and thereafter take necessary action against the owners.

M/s Edsmart Global LLP and another Vs The State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA^KODANDARAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:'12313 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

lr,4/s Edsmart Global LLP, Rept., by its l/anaging^{Director, [\4sSarah S Quadri,} Office at. Plot No.209, Lakshmi Vihar Phase l, Nallagandla,^{Scrilingampally,R.R} District - 500019.

¶8

Smt Sarah S Quadri, D/o Sri G Satyanarayana Rao,^{aged about 40 Years,Occ.} l,4anaging Director lt//s EDSIT/ART Global LLP, R/o Flat^{No. 1001, H Block,} Aparna Sarovar Grande, Nallagandla, Ranga Reddy District

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rept., by Principal Secretary lt/unicipal Admin and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner, Narsingi lvlunicipality 3-98, Narsingi, Ranga Reddy District,

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner (TPO), Town Planning Narsingi lVlunicipality 3-98, Narsingi, Ranga Reddy 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 direction more^particularly in nature of writ of Mandamus declarrng action of lhe respondent's herein more^particularly respondent No, 2 and 3 in threatening to demolish/remove/pull down the slructure occupied by^petitioner i.e., Ground Floor Plus 1st floor Sy.No. 309, 310 and 312 admeasuring Ac. 2-32 G1s situated at Vattinagulapally Village, Gandipet lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana in pursuance of notice dated 2110712020 bearing No. 2129lNIVC lTPS12020 issued by respondent No.2 without considering^petitioners representation dated 3110712020, without issuing notice to the owners as highly illegal, arbitrary, agarnst principle of natural^justice and violation of Article 14, 19,21 and 300-A of The Constitution of lndia in consequence direct the respondents herein to re-call their notice dated 2110712020 bearing No. 2129iNMCfiPSl2020 in lieu of petitioner's representation dated 31 1O712020.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

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 stay all further proceedings including demolitron of structure occupied by petitioner i.e., Ground Floor Plus 1st floor Sy.No.309,310 and 312 admeasuring Ac. 2-32 Gts situated at Vattinagulapally Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana pursuant to impugned notice dated 2j lO7l2O2O bearing No. 2129lNIt/C fiP512020 issued by respondent No.2 pendlng disposable of the main writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. MIRZA NISAR AHMED BAIG

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNIC|PAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶20

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

¶21

SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶22

'l-he Court madc thc follorving: ORDER

¶23

THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE^{CHALLAKODANDA RAM}

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.^{12313 of 2O2g}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ Petition is^{filed seeking a mandamus to declare the} action of the respondents,^{more particularlyRespondents 2 and 3 ln} threatening to demolish /remove /pull^{down the structureoccupied} by the^{petitionersi.e. groundfloor + Lst floor in Survey Nos' 309, 310} and 3t2 admeasuring^{Acs.2.32guntas situatedat vattinagulapally} Village, Gandipet^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to the} notice dated 2t.07.2020^{issued by the znd respondent,without} considering their^{representation dated31.07 '2020 and without} issuing notice to^{the owners, as highly illegal and arbitrary.}

¶27

The^{petitioners challenge the notice dated 2l'07.2020on the} ground that they are^{only leaseholdersof the subject property'} hence, they cannot^{answer the constructionsallegedly made in} violationofG.O.Ms.No'l68,dated07'04'2012'However'the peiltioners submit^{that they had also submittedexplanationon} 3 1 .07 .2020.

¶28

Lea rned^{cou nsel for the petitioners, placingrelia nce on thc:} order in^{Writ Petition No. 10974 of 2020, dated 22'07,2a20, submits} that this court,^{by setting asidethe notice challenqedthereln/gave} llberty to^{the respondentauthorities to taxe aciion in accordance with} law against^{the owner of the premises}

¶29

ontheotherhand,SriChanakya,learnedcounselrepresentinq Sri N.Praveen^{Kumar, learned Standingcounsel for the respondent} Municipality^{sr.rbmits that the petitioners' representation / objections} areyettobeconsideredandwhileconsideringthesame,the respondentauthoritieswouldalsokeepinviewtheorderofthis

¶30

Court in Writ Petition No. 10924 of 2020 and take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶31

Having regard to the respective submissions, as the petitioners had already submitted their explanation, before taking any action, the respondent authorities shall consider the representation I objections dated 31,07.2020 and only thereafter, take necessary action with respect to the alleged violations.

¶32

Subject to the above, the writ^petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶33

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these

¶34

writ petitions, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/.N.CHANDRA SE RAO ASSISTANT R //TRUE COPY/ SE OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

The Principal Secretary tVunicipal Admin and Urban Development, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶38

2- The Commissioner, Narsingi tr/unicipality 3-98, Narsingi, Ranga Reddy District,

¶39

The Assistant Commi:.,glrgl(TPO), Town Planning Narsingi lVunicipality 3-gB, Narsingi, Ranga Reddy Distriit.

¶40

one cc to sri Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig, Advocate [opUC]

¶41

one cc to Sri N.praveen Kumar, sc for lvunicipality, Advocate [opUC]

¶42

Two ccs to Gp for tt/unicr-pjrlAdministration and Urban Development, High court for the state of rerangana at uyaeruoio- roun^{- vr! '|v'| '|r'}

¶43

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:11 10812020

ORDER

1 H J TA I.-t
U 2 4 Alj$ 1020
* .t
l

¶49

WP.No.12313 of 2020

¶50

DISPOSING^{OF THE WP}

¶51

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶52

,
w

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Edsmart Global LLP and another 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

Cases cited

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

G.Upender Vs The State of Telangana