Allowed

Ameena Begum v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC28 Oct 2022WP/38886/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Municipal Corporation's inaction against Respondent No.4 for illegal construction. Court directed the Corporation to take appropriate action under the notice dated 10-10-2022 within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy.

Ameena Begum Vs The State of Telangana and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 38886 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ameena R/o 8-2-603/2Be3/30, Road^gum,W/o No 10,^Late Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.^{Mohammed Shafiuddinaged65,} ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administrative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

Grealq Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, GHMC, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Circle No.1B, GHMC, Khaitarabad Zone, Hyderabad.

¶13

Mrs. Asha Bee, Wo. Mr. Chinne Khan, Aged about 38 tears, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-36/2, Warkoor, Maganoor, Mahabubnagar District - 509 208, Telangana State.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in not taking any action against respondent No.4 for carrying out illegal construction retaining wall of H. No. 8-2-603/23130, situated at Singada Kunta, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad except issuing notice dated 10110120?2 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, consequently to direct the official respondents to demolish the illegal construction raised by respondent No.4 in pursuance of notice dated 1011012022.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 202t1

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr:umstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Cour: nay be pleased to direct the off icial rlspondents to demolish the illegal c()n struction abutting retaining wall of H. I lo. 8-2-603/23130, situated at Singada^(lnta, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hydera:ad pending disposal of the above writ Fetition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petit oner : SRI RAMAKRISHNA K

¶19

Counsel for the Resg ondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADiIIINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVEL' )PMENT

¶20

Counsel for the Res; ondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI K. SIODARTH R/\O, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Res; ondent No.4:----

¶21

The Court made the I )lrowing: ORDER

¶22

t I

¶23

)

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.38886 of 2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer;

¶28

'to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring lhe action of the official respondenls in not taking any action against respondent No.4 for carrying out illegal constructioo retaining wall of H.No.8-2-603/23l30 situated at Singada Kunta, Road No.10,'Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, except issuing notice dated 10-10-2022 as illegal, arbitrary and unconslitutional, consequently to direct the official respondents to demolish the illegal mnstruction raised by respondent No.4 in pursuance of notice daled 1O-1O-2O22'.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Ramakrishna submits that the petitioner ;Sve a representation dated 16-09-2O22 lo respondent No.3 requesting to take action on the illegal construction made by the unofficial respondent No.4 touching the petitioner's retaining wall. He submits that in spite of the same, no action has been initiated by respondent No.3 and hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶30

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 Mr. K. Siddarth Rao submits that after receiving the representation of the petitioner, the respondent Corporation has already issued a show cause notice dated 10-10-2022 lo the unofficial respondent No.4. He submits that the respondent Corporation will take further action in accordance with law.

¶31

¶32

LK. J r'r'.P.t.lo 38886 of 2022

¶33

¶34

Reco ding the submission of the leamed Standrnlt Counsel, the Writ Petitior is disposed of, directing the respondent rlrporation to take appropr ate action in accordance with law pursu.rni to the notice dated 10-1 0 2022 issued to the unofficial respondent No.4 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy (,f this order. No order as to c( sts

¶35

5 Miscell rneous Applications, if any pending in tris writ petition, shall stand clc serd

¶36

¶37

sD/T. INIVAS TIEPUTY STRAR //TRUE COPY// l:;EC N OFFICER To, 1 The Principal iecretary, Municipal Administrative Department, State of Telangana Se ;retariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Comnriss :ner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corpcration, GHMC, Tankbund Ro: d, Hyderabad.

¶38

a The Deputy M rnicipal Commissioner, Circle No.18, GHtrlC, Khaitarabad Zone, Hyderal ad.

¶39

4q One CC to Sr Ramakrishna K Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to G⁾ for Municipal Adminiskation and Urban l)evelopment, High Court for ihe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OLIT]

¶40

o One CC to Sri^(. Siddarth Rao, SC for GHMC [OPUC]

¶41

7 Two CD Copie ; B One Spare Co ry

.,til$-=-

HIGH COURT

DATED:28t10t2022

ORDER

L
.z'-,,-1--. \ :<br>q
L-)' ,),
:
s
,qJ
Q'-"
?, et:<br><br>

¶47

WP.No.38886 of 2.02i

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE W P WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

<br>rl V./

Ameena Begum v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameena Begum v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

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

Mudavath Radhakrishna and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

M/s. Surabhi Farms Vs The State of Telengana

T. Madaru Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Kursam Seshu Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

B.Narasimha Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Nerella Divya Vs The State of Telangana