Allowed

E.Srinivas v. State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022WP/2524/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, under Article 226, disposed of a writ petition questioning the inaction of municipal officials regarding an illegal cell tower. The court directed authorities to remove the tower and initiate action against the builder within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of directing respondents to remove the installed cell tower and take appropriate action against the builder within four weeks.

E.Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 5 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE^{TWELFTHDAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICELALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶6

WRIT^{PETITIO NNO :2524 OF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

E.Srinivas,^{S/o E.Sataiah. Aged about67 years'Occ'} Business, Fl/o^H.No.2- 2-185t21t8,^{RamakrrshnaNagar, Amberpet'Hyderaoa} d - 500013.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana,^{Rep by its Principal Secretary' Municipal Administration} and Urban Development.^{Secretariat HyderaDao'}

¶12

The Greater^{Hyderabadtvlunicipal Corporation'Represented.by.its}

¶13

Commislidn"r, eUvC ne,d oifice, Tdnkbund Road Hyderabad'

¶14

3,TheChiefCityPlanner,GreaterHyderabadMunicipalcorporation,Tankbund Road, HYderabad'

¶15

The Assistant^{City Planner, Circle16 GHMC' Hyderabad'}

¶16

5.TheDirectorGeneral,TelanganaState-D.lsasterResoonseFireServices'2nd floor,^{poticeHead auan"el 6riiJi"g.(ClD Building),Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad-} 500004.

¶17

J.Appa Rao,^{S/o unknown Aged about 65 years',Occ' Business'Ri/o H'No'2-} " z-i66tzoiii, Ramakrisnna Nigar, Amberpdt' Hvderabad - 500013'

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith'the High Court may be} ;i";il^{i; issue any writ orderor directron more particulartyone in the nature of} WritofMandamusd'eclaringtheinactionoftheRespondentno.2to5innottaking action against^{the ResponjentNo.6 herein for the illegal construclion and.further} installation of^{the cell tower on the terrace of the building of theH'No.'2-2-} lasiiole, Ramakrishna^{Nagar.Amberpet, Hyderabadinspite of beingin receiptof} the representation^{dated zitot tzozt and 25io1 12021as beingarbitraryillegal-and} violative of Articles^{14 and 21 of Constitutionof lndia and the provisions of the} Ciu"iut Hyderabad^{lr,4unicipal CorporationAct 1955 and the Rules made there} under an ionsequenfly^{direct the Respondents2 to 5 hereinto initiate appropriate} action against^{the illegal construction being undertaken by the Respondent No 6} on i.Nolz-z-^{185l2oti, Ramakrishna Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad}

¶20

IA NO:^{'t oF 202'.1}

¶21

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filedin suppoiof f'e petiti6n' iflOnCourt maybe pleasedto pass} anorderdirectingtnerespo-noer'tstostopfurtherinstallationofthecelltoweron H'No'2-2-185/20/A'^{RamakrishnaNagar'} the terrace^{ofpremises" ;;;;;g} Amberpet,^{Hyderabad, pd;;;;p;l} of..the writ^{petitionin the interestof} irrti"e,^{p.nAing disposal of the above writ petition'}

¶22

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRl'AADESHVARMA}

¶23

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'1:GP FORMCPL ADMNURBAN DEV}

¶24

counsel for^{the Respondent No's' 2 to 5: SRI PASHAM KRISHNAREDDY (SC} FOR GHMC)

¶25

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo'6:NONE APPEARED}

¶26

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶27

,--

¶28

¶29

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.2524 of 2O2L

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not taking action against the respondent No.6 for the illegal construction and further installation of the cell tower on the terrace of the building of H.No.2-2-185/20/A, Ramakrishna Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad in spite of being in receipt of the representations dated 22.O1.2021 and 25.01.2021 as illegal and violative of Articles of 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Mr. Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unofficial respondent who is neighbor of the petitioner has illegally constructed a building and also installed a cell tower on the terrace of the building. He submits that the petitioner has macle representations dated 22.01.2021 and 25.01.2021 to thc respondents, but they failed to act on the said reprcscntations. I{ence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this court b-y filing rhe present writ petition.

¶34

Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, lcarned Standing Counsel

¶35

W.P.No.2524 of ZO2I

¶36

¶37

for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 fited counter affidavit stating that they have revoked the provisional permission for erection of cell tower in the subject premises vide proceedings dated 25.02.2021. However, he does not dispute the fact that the said structure in the premises is illegal structure.

¶38

Recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the writ petition 1S disposed of directing the respondents to remove the cell tower which is erectcd in the terrace of the premises. The respondents shall take appropriirte action on ttre representations dated 22.O I .2O2 l and 25.O | .2021 of the petitioner within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, after issuirrg notice to the unofficial respondent so as to give him an opportunity to submit his explanation, if any. No order as to cosrs

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this r.r,rit petition shall stand closed.

¶40

SD/. T.JAYASREE ASSTSTANT/8EGTSTRAR

¶41

To,

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

1 The Principar secrelarv. t/unicipar Administration and Urban Deveropment. State of Terangana, Secretariit Hvoirj'oiJ.'-

¶44

2 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, GHMC Head Office, Tankbund Road Hyderabad.

¶45

3 The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad,

¶46

-'t

¶47

¶48

The Assistant City Planner, Circle 16 GHtr/C, Hyderabad,

¶49

The Director General, Telangana State Disaster Response Fire Services, 2nd floor, Police Head Quarters Building, (ClD Building), Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad500004.

¶50

One CC to SRl. AADESH VARMA Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTJ

¶52

One CC to SRl. PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY (SC FOR GHMC), Advocate toPUCI

¶53

Two CD Copies.

¶54

One Spare Copy.

\ I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210412022

ORDER

-w
n
C\J
r., Ll \ .l
E
.<
a cll
i.il =f,
F-
c:. rJ (
o
v
r/(} ?l

WP.No.2524 of²⁰²¹

DISPOSING OF THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS.

(
,v1 I1

E.Srinivas v. State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Srinivas v. State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y. Venkat Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Yadagiri Rani Bai Vs The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and 7 others

K. Pedda Raji Reddy and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Mohammed Farooq Uddin. Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Sulaman Yamani Vs The State of Telangana

Aavula Sowmya Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation