Dismissed

Mohammed Younus v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Apr 2022WP/16433/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 16433 of 2022, the petitioner challenged the inaction of respondents regarding the installation of a statue causing traffic congestion. The High Court directed the Municipality to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within two weeks, disposing of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent Municipality to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.03.2022 and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

Mohammed Younus Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH^{DAY OF APRIL}

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{LALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16433^{OF 2022}

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

It4ohammed Younus. Sio. B. Abdul^{Razzak, Aged about 42 years,} Occ- Business R/o. H. No.6-2-47,^{Subashnagar,Tandur , Vikarabad, T.S.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana,^{Through its Chief Secretary.office at Secretariat} Buildings, at Hyderabad

¶12

The District Collector, Vikarabad^District ,^{Vikarabad, T.S.}

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Tandur,Vikarabad District.}

¶14

The lr/andal Revenue Officer,^{Tandur, Vikarabad Dist}

¶15

The Assistant Engineer,^{( R and B} ),^{Vikarabad District.}

¶16

The Superintendent^{Engineer, (R and B} )Vikarabad^District.

¶17

The Circle lnspector of^{police, Tandur.Vikarabad District}

¶18

B. The Commissioner, Municipal^{Council, Tandur,Vikarabad District}

¶19

(RB is impleaded as^per C.O. Dt 0810412022^{in l.A No.212022)}

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226^{o1 the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewrth,the High courtmay be} pleased to pass an order, direction or a^{writ particularly in the nature of writ of} It4andamus declaring that the^{inaction of respondentsNo.2 to 6 on the} representation of the^{petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary and u n co nstitutionaI and} in contravention of the^{guidelines laid down by the Apex court Consequently this} Honble court may be^{pleased to direct the respondents'1 to 6 to immediately} remove the^pillar raised in the^{center of Road leading to Hyderabadopposite to} Tandur Police Station for^{purpose of installingthe statue.}

¶22

IA NO 2 oF 2022 petition under section 151 cpc^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition' the High Court may be pleasedto} implead^{the proposed party as respondentno' 8 in W P No 16433 oI 2022'}

¶23

IA NO: 10F²⁰²²

¶24

petition under Serction^r sr^{cpc prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to pass} an interim^{direction thereby directing the respondentsto immediatelystop the} construction^{work being carried out in the centerof Road leading to Hyderabad} opposite^{to Tandur Police Stationfor purpose of installingthe Statue'}

¶25

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI'SYED YASARMAMOON}

¶26

Counsel^{for the Respondent No' 1 : GP FOR GENERALADMINISTRATION}

¶27

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos' 2 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE}

¶28

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'5 & 6 : GP FORROADS AND BUILDINGS}

¶29

Counsel^{for the Respr:ndent No' 7 : GP FOR HOME}

¶30

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No. 16433 OF 2022

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition is liled questioning the inaction of Respondents 2 to 6 in considering the representation of the petitioner dated 23.03.2022 submitted to the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Tandur.

¶37

Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given the representation dated 23.O3.2022 to Municipal Commissioner, Revenue Divisional Officer and Superintending Engineer^(R&B) to stop immediately the installation of statue of 'Subhash Chandra Bose and Sardar Sarvi Papanna' opposite to Shanthi Mahai Theatre Station Road. It is stated that large number of vehicles pass through the said area, which is always packed with healy traffic and in such congestive prime area, installation of statue will cause inconvenience to the^public.at large. It is stated that though the petitioner has brought this fact to the notice of the Authorities, they failed to take the same into consideration, hence, he approached this Court.

¶38

Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsei for the respondent municipality submits that the municipal

¶39

authorities will take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within two weeks. 4. Recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed ol directing the respondent Municipality to consider the representation dated 23.O3.2022 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automaticallv closed.

¶40

SD/- N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' ,y'

¶41

To,

¶42

The Chief Secreiary, office at Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶43

The District Collector, Vikarabad District , Vikarabad , T.S.

¶44

The Revenue Di'risional Officer, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

¶45

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tandur, Vikarabad Dist

¶46

The Assistant Errgineer, ( R and B ), Vikarabad District.

¶47

The Superintendent Engineer, (R and B ) Vikarabad District.

¶48

The Circle lnspe,:tor of police, Tandur. Vikarabad District

¶49

B. One CC to SRl. IIYED YASAR MAMOON, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Two CCs to GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at llyderabad. [OUT]

¶51

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU-l]

¶52

11.Two CCs to GP t:OR ROADS AND BUILDINGS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

12.fwo CCs to GP FOR HON/E, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU--]

¶54

'1 3.Two CD Copies

¶55

14.One Spare Copy

ABBASI

a.E'

HIGH COURT

DATED :08104i2022

ORDER

/.I
A-
....\t
+^
\-
t,
<br>

¶62

WP.No.16433 at 2022

¶63

DISPOSING OFI THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

9r'x'

Mohammed Younus v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Younus 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

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

Sri Syed Rizwan and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Zaheda Begum Vs The Principle Secretary and 4 others