Disposed

Sri Syed Rizwan and Another v. The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Telangana HC8 Apr 2022WP/14048/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a writ petition filed by petitioners challenging the officials who permitted the illegal installation of a telecom tower on an unauthorized building in Hyderabad. The court held that the respective respondents must consider the petitioners' representations within three weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Syed Rizwan and Another Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY^{OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICELALITHAKANNEGANTI}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:¹ 4048^{0F 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Sri Sved Rizwan, S/o Late^{Syed Osman, Aged 28 years,OccBusiness,Rl/o'} H.No:18-8-104/50/1 , P.N.^{Nagar, EdiBazar,Hyderabad.} Sri Mohd Osman Khan, S/o^{Mohd Khaja Khan, Aged 35 years,Occ'} eusineis, R/o. H.No.18-8lOqqZ,^{P.N Nagar,EdiBazar' Hyderabad'}

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana,^{Represented by its Principal-S-eglglary,Municipal} Administration and-Urban^{Development Department, BRK Bhavan'} Secretariat Bldg., Hyderabad.

¶12

z The DeDartment of Telecommunication^{and information Technology,} Represbnted by its official, Sanchar^{Bhawan New Delhi, lndia.}

¶13

3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal^{Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Lower} Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The DeDutv Commissione{, Greater^{Hyderabad I/unicipal Corporation,Circle} No.7, Santbshnagar,^{Yakhutpura,Hyderabad.}

¶15

6 The Assistant City Planner,^{Town Planning Sectron,GHMC, Circle} Chandrayangutta, Charminar^{Zone, Hyderabad.}

¶16

6 The Assistant Engineer,^{Telangana State Southern Power Distribution} Company Limited, Santoshnagar^Division.

¶17

7 The Station House officer, Santosh^{Nagar Police Station, SantoshNagar,} Hyderabad.

¶18

Sri Rizwan Ahmed, S/o Not^{knownto Petitioner' Aged. Major, Occ. Business,} R/o. H.No.1B-B-104150, PN^{Nagar, EdiBazar,Hyderabad.}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 ol^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ of mandamus^{declaring the action of the Respondent3 to 7} in permitting the Bth Respondent to Proceed with the illegal installation^of telecom mu nication tower without^obtaining necessary^permission on^a

¶21

¶22

unauthorizedbuildinginthepremisesNo'18-8-104/50'EdiBazar'Hyderabad.as [i;;i , improper,^{urijust, arbitrary and in violatio.nof the provisionsof ruleslaid} a",i"^'tor' inltatiation of^{telec'ommunicationtower and further directthe} nl.JonJ"nt. 3 to7^{to take action against the Bth Respondent in proceedings with} if," iif lgri i".trllatio^{n of telecommuriication tower construction in premises bearing} No. 18-B-104/50, Edi^{Bazar, Hyderabad'}

¶23

IAN O:1QF 2022

¶24

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetltion,theHighCourtmaybepleaSedtodireCt in" n".ponO"nts^{3 to 7 to stop the illegal installationof telecommunication tower} [v atr, i".pondent^{in the premisesbearino1B-8-104/50,Edi Bazar, Hyderabad} forthwith,^{pendingdisposal of the WritPetition'}

¶25

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRl.SYED RAZZAQ AHMED}

¶26

Counsel for^{the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPLADMN URBAN DEV}

¶27

Counsel for^{the Respondent No.2:SRl NAMAVARAPU RAJESWAR RAO} (ASST.SOL. GEN)

¶28

counselfortheRespondentNo's.3to5:SRIPASHAMKRISHNAREDDY(sc FOR GHMC)

¶29

counselfortheRespondentNo.6:SRIR.VINoDREoDY(SCFoRTSSPDCL)

¶30

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'7:GPFOR HOME}

¶31

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No.8: NONE APPEARED}

¶32

The Gourt made^{the following:'ORDER}

¶33

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA XANNEGANTI

¶34

WRIT PETITI ON No. L4O4a of 2o22

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Perition is filed questioning the action of Respondents 3 to 7 in permitting the Sfi respondent to proceed with the illegal installation of telecommunication tower without obtaining necessary permission on a unauthorized building in the premises bearing No. 18-08-104/50, Edi Bazaar, Hyderabad as illegal and un just.

¶37

Sri Syed Rizwan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the unofficial respondent has constructed the building without obtaining permission and the official respondents without considering the same have granted permission for installation of telecommunication tower. He submits that the representations made by the petitioners are not considered, hence, they have come before this Court.

¶38

Learned . Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, on instructions, submits that permission is granted for stilt + two floors, but the gft respondent raised two more floors without obtaining any permission. It is submitted that as per the Circular issued by the Central Government, whenever an Application is filed for

¶39

¶40

installation of cell tower, the respondent officials^{will visit the place} of erection of tower and grant^permission. lt is^{statedthat tlre} respondent Corporation will not look into the other^{issues and} accordingly, after inspecting the^premises, they have^granted permission.

¶41

In this case, admittedly, even as^per the instructions of the learned Standing Counsel, an unauthorized construction^is made and on such construction they have^{given permissionfor} erecting a cell tower. Already the petitioners have^made representations dated 02.11.2021 to the respondent Corporation and 03. 1 l.2O2l to the Inspector of Police,^{SanthoshnagarPolice} Station. The official respondents shall^{therefore,consider the} representations of the petitioners in accordance with^{law within} three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this^{order and} pass appropriate orders-

¶42

The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of.^There shali be no order as to costs.

¶43

The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand

¶44

clo SD/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT"BFFISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// sec#dilorrrcen

¶45

To' ./

¶46

1 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and^{Urban Development} Department, State of Telangana, BRK Bhavan, Secretariat^{Bldg., Hyderabad.}

¶47

¶48

2.Theofficial,DepartmentofTelecommunicationandinformationTechnology' Sanchar Bhawan^{New Delhi' lndia'}

¶49

s. ih" cor*issioner,^{Grealer'Hyderabad Municipal corporation,Lower Tank} Bund, HYderabad.

¶50

4 il; fj"priy^{Commissioner, Greater HyderabadlvlunicipalCorporation' Circle} No.7, Santoshnagar,^{Yakhutpura,Hyderabad'} .

¶51

s. ihe essistant^{Cit! Planner, iownPlanning Section' GHMC'Circle}

¶52

Chandrayangutta,^{Charminar Zone' Hyderabad'}

¶53

The Assistant^{Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution} Company^{Limited, Santoshnagar Division'} - ..

¶54

z. ih" Sirti.n^{House officer,Saitosl'rNagar Police Station' Santosh Nagar'} Hyderabad.

¶55

B. o;; cC to^{SRl. SYEDRAzzAQAHMED Advocate[oPUc]} 9. Two ccs^{to Gp FoR Mct;DtMN URBAN DEV,Highcourtfor the state of}

¶56

,,, l?383i3 L?Y]l,orouo*Apu RAJESWAR RAo^{(ASSr soL GEN)'} Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

r r.o"" cc t,i^{sRt. PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY (sc FoR GHMC)' Advocate} toPUCl

¶59

12.one CC to^{SRl. R.VINOD REDDY(SCFORTSS^PDCL)'Advocateto-l.U.gf} 13.Two CCs to^{GP fOn ff OHii,Frighbourt for the State of Telangana' [OUT]} 14.Two CD^CoPies.

¶60

15.One SPare^CoPY.

GB SB -

r (

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810412022

ORDER

1 HE STAT
oo 2 0 Jiili 2rj22 z
.b
*
. .--':,
i

¶67

WP.No.14048 of 2022

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.

Sri Syed Rizwan and Another v. The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Syed Rizwan and Another v. The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nareddy Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Rafiuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Brungi Surendar Vs The Director of Municipal Administration

Maria Xavier Vs The State of Telangana

Zaheda Begum Vs The Principle Secretary and 4 others

Mohammed Younus Vs The State of Telangana