Partly allowed

Mohammed Abdul Qayyum v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Mar 2022WP/3214/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana entertained a review application in W.P. No. 3214 of 2018. It was observed that after the filing of the writ petition, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation issued another closure notice against the petitioner. The court allowed the review partly to permit the petitioner to pursue remedies for non-imposition of that closure notice.

What did the court decide?

Review petition partly allowed permitting the petitioner to pursue remedies for non-imposition of a closure notice issued by G.H.M.C. on 07-02-2019.

Mohammed Abdul Qayyum Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

132411

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHTNAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

REVIEW I.A.NO.1 OF 2022

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 3214 OF 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mohammed Abdul Qayyum, S/o Late M A Kareem, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Social worker, Ri/o H.No. 19-4-368, Kishanbagh, Ali Nagar, Bahadurpura' Hyderabad

¶11

...pETraoNER

¶12

ANO

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, New Circle-10 ( OId Circle No.s-B), South Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶16

M/s lr/etro Cement and Hardware, Near Jalwa Hotel, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, rep. by its Proprietor Mohd. Nizamuddin, S/o Late Mohd

¶17

Ghousuddin, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No. 19-4-3761211, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad.

¶18

5 Telangina Staie Pollution Control Board, Regional office at 4th Floor, Pofupu Bhavan, Hyderabad Collectorate Complex, S. Road, Hyderbad.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 review the order dated 04-03-2022 in W.P.No. 321412018 and allow the Writ Petition no.321412018 as prayed for.

¶21

This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon reading the order dated 04.03.2022 in W.P.No.3214 of 2018 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nikunj Dugar, counsel for the Review Petitioner and GP for Administration & Urban Development on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and of Sri P. Shiva Kumar, Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 5, the Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

"when the rnatter of review is taken up for hearing. it is contended by the Review Petiti,ner that after firing of writ petition by thr-, petitioner the G.H.M.c. has issued yet another crosure notice on 0g-(7.201g in respect of 4th respondent es rabrishment and riberty be given to lhe pBtitioner to see that the said clost re notice be enforced through court c I. law.

¶23

ln view of u re said submission, this court is of t hr: c'nsidered view that the Review is parfly allowed permitting the review Frertitioner to pur$ue the remedies for ir nprication of crosure notice issued b1. c;.H M.c. on 0g-072019, in accordanr:e with law. With these above liberty, the orders passed in the Writ Petition are modified."

¶24

IJDi.N. SRIHARI ASS SrANT-8EGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII (. -.ll) SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principalt ;ecretary, Municipal Administration LJrban [)evelopment Separtment,^{S rate of ietangani.} Secreijriai, ilvduiliiro 2. The commissi rner Greatei Hyoeraoao' rt,,luniiifij"ciipo -ation, Tank B und, Hyderabad. J. The Deputy C< mmissioner, Ne_w Circle-l0 ( Old Circle N,).:i_B), South Zone, 9reaLeI^{Hyder rbadMunicipat_ Corporaiion,'Cfrarmi.,ii,} U rO"rdiJ 4 9ne 99^{to Sri rlikunjDuga'r,} AdvocateiOiUti^"" lwo CCs to GI, For Municioal Adminisiration & Urhan Dr verlopment, High Court_for the S ate of Telang"nr. tOUt^{-' -} 6. Qn" 99^{to Sri )ashamKris"hnaRbOdy,'Aavocate(Opuc)} 7. 9n" 99^{to Sri ). Shiva Kumar,} Advo;jt'e(oF[Jtj'-''^" o- Two CD Copie ; MBC GJP

¶25

r-ll,GH COURT

¶26

DAT::iD: '1110812022

¶27

:<br>t-
,/ )' E) *"
F.5w a
l, t: , rJ.J ,;Ji-
t{J a;
I t{ ,.|
. . E
ORDER
,(
REVIEW I.A NO.1 OF 2022
IN
WP NO: 3,214OF 2018

¶28

PAR LY ALLOWING THE REVIEW PETITION

¶29

\ c)
\r1
)-

Mohammed Abdul Qayyum v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Abdul Qayyum 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

M/s. Mariam Constructions Vs The South Central Railway

Dodda Mamata Vs The Telangana Resdential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (Trei-Rb)

M/s. Kasturi Constructions, Vs The South Central Railway ( Scr)

Sudireddy Pulla Reddy (Died per L.Rs) Vs The State of Telengana

G.Madhusudhan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. M.V. Soundararajan, R.R. Dist Vs Prl Secy, Endowments Dept., Hyd and 6 Ot