Disposed

Vuchuru Sudhakara Reddy, v. The Telangana State

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022WP/10892/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Zonal Commissioner's failure to act on a representation to cancel an illegal building permit. The petition was allowed in principle, directing authorities to summon necessary parties and decide the matter within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to consider petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2021 by giving notice to all necessary parties including owner, builder, and developer and pass appropriate orde

Vuchuru Sudhakara Reddy, Vs The Telangana State — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 10892 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vuchuru Sudhakara Reddy, S/o Late Sri V.Rami Reddy, Age 67^{Years, RJo} Flat 401, Cyber Nest Apartments, Plot No. 48, Sy.No.32, Guttalabegumpet, Cyber Hills, lVladhapur, Hyderabad-500081

¶8

...pE,,oNER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Telangana State, Represented by its Principle Secretary,^It/unicipal Administration Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad tVunicipal Corporation,^{Head Office,} Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Zonal Commissioner, GHN/C, Serilingampally^{Zone, Hyderabad.}

¶13

lVrs. Bojje Padma,, W/o. lVr. B. Shivaprasad Age 68 Years, Occupation House Wife, R/o Plot No.225, on H.No.1-'10lTN/301,^{[,,4ythri Nagar, Trinethra} Nivas, l,4adinaguda, Hyderabad-500049.

¶14

...RES'.N,ENTS

¶15

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 issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of Respondent No.3 in not taking any action^{on the} representation dated 12-02-2021 made by the^petitioner against Respondent^No.4 seeking cancellation of Building Permit No.2/C2011141612018 daled 0710712018 obtained by Respondent No.4 by suppressing earlier two Building^Permission Application's made Vide File No. 1lcl110454512017^(New) D|.2110412017-^{Live as} on date (HO, GHIVC) and Vide File No.1/C1 111506512017^(New) Dt.0Bl11l17' Live as un date (HO, GHIVC) is arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct Respondent No.2 to in turn direct Respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 12-02-2021 made by the^petitioner and cancel Building^Permit No.21C2011141612018, dated 071071201 B as contemplated under law.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^pass

¶18

an interim order by directing Respondent No.4^{to stay the construction activitywith} immediate effect covered by Building Permit vide No.21C2011141612018^{dated 07-} 07 -2018 pending writ^petition and in the^{interestof justice.} Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SUBRAMANYAM^D,ARABOINA

¶19

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: GP^{FORMUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION&} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶20

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI SAMPATH^{PRABHAKARREDDY} Counsel for Respondent No. 4 SRI K.^{PRADEEP REDDY}

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER.

¶22

¶23

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{LALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.10^{a92 ot 2O2l}

¶25

o FtDER.:

¶26

This writ petition is^{filed qr-restioningthe action of} the respondent No.3^{in nottaking action onthe} tepresentatibh datbd^{12.02.2021 of the petitioner as} Itlegal and aibltlalY,

¶27

Mr. StrUr&rrtartyhm^{Daraboina,learned counsel} for the petitiorref^{Strbrnits that the petitionermadea} representation dated^{lz.oz.zozt to therespondent} authoritibs seekiHg "Hrlb.U,tiot'^{of the building permit} -d4ted^{07.O7.2:A!8 grarrt€h in favor of respondentNo'4 in} respbct of plot'NO*,+9^{and 5O in survey No'32' Guttala} BegumpCt Village,^{Serilingampally Mandal' RangaReddy} District. He sUbrnits^{that the respondent No'4 obtained} buiiding^{permiqsion by suppressing earliertwo building} p€rmission applications^{which were made by him' He} submits that the^{petitiorryr has stated several aspectsin} the representation^{but the same were not consideredby} the respondent^{Authorities.fleace, the petitioneris} constrained^{to approach this Court'}

¶28

W.P.No^{10892 of 2021}

¶29

¶30

Mr' K'^{Pradeep Reddy' learned cor'rnsei submits} ttrat^{tre is} appearing^{for the Developer of the subject} property^{and without making himas a Party resPondent'} 1S filed.^{He submitsthat the Writ} this^{Writ Petition} Petition^{has to bedismissedfornon-joinderof} approPriate^{and necessarY Parties'}

¶31

by Mr. SamPath 4. Even^{acounter isalso filed} for the Counsel Prabhakar^{ReddY' learned Standing} several' stating respondent^{Municipal Corporation} aspects.

¶32

approached^the 5 When^the Petitioner^has respondent^{ar.rthoritiesfiling a representatignin the year} 2021,^{t?re respondentsought to have-'considered ald} that regard.^{Instead of} passed^{aPProPriate orders ln} doing^{so, ttre respondent' authoritiesfiled} counter They affidavit^{before this Cour!' giving various reasons'} would^{have as well infovmedto the petitioner'}

)/ /

W.P,No.10892 0f2021

Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent Authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 72.O2.2021 by giving notice to all the parties i.e. owner, builder and developer of the subject property and also whoever are necessary parties and pass appropriate orclers in accordance with law within four (4) weeks from today. No order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this

¶40

writ petition sha-l1 stand closed.

¶41

SD/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The, Principle Secretary, Telangana State l,4unicipal Administration Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶47

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Ir/unicipal Corporation, Head Office, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.

¶48

The Zonal Commissioner, GHtVC, Serilingampally Zone, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRl. SUBRAIVANYAIV DARABOTNA Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to GP FOR IVCPL AD|,,4N URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT].

¶49

One CC to Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, SC for GHTVC (OPUC)

¶50

One CC to Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, Advocate (OpUC)

¶51

Two CD Copies. 9. One Spare Copy. Gtr4N SB !v--

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810412022

ORDER

WP.No.10892 of 2021

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.

¶57

I e srArS
a'
o 21 un 2022 L(; ,i
t- '-,,_,.r' t ,
--,.

¶58

9
A \r"

Vuchuru Sudhakara Reddy, v. The Telangana State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vuchuru Sudhakara Reddy, v. The Telangana State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Rajitha Vs The State of Telangana

J Amarnath Vs The State of Telangana

Chintapandu Naveen Kumar , Theenmar Mallanna Vs The State of Telangana

Vuchuru Sudhakara Reddy Vs The Telangana State, And 3 Others

Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy Vs The Government of Telangana Dept

Sri. v. Balaiah and 17 others Vs The State of Telangana and 14 others