Disposed

Nala Bazar Residents Welfare Association v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Sept 2022WP(PIL)/62/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for desilting drains, laying sewer pipes to prevent water logging, and restoring a demolished approach road in Nala Bazar, Hyderabad. The court directed regular desilting to prevent water stagnation but did not order the laying of pipes or the restoration of the road.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents 2 and 3 to regularly desilt the drain and ensure no waterlogging; ensure proper road condition with ingress/egress.

Nala Bazar Residents Welfare… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[ 32es ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHU AN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR RE DY

¶6

WRIT PETITION (PlL) NO: 62 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nala Bazar Residents Welfare Association, Represented by Sm P.Geeta W/o G.Sreenivas Rao Aged aboul 52 Yrs, Occ- Social Activitst, 7-1 054, Shankar Veedhi, Secunderabad

¶9

.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Presented by Principal Secretary lviuni al Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat Hyderabad500 022

¶12

2 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by he Commissioner, CC Complex Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad-063

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner,, GHMC Circle No.1B, Beside CC Co rt Complex, Secunderabad-500 026

¶14

The Stat of Telangana,, Represented by its Principal Secretary, ome Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022

¶15

Addl.Commissioner of Police Traffic,, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 00 01

¶16

SHO Mahankali Traffic P.S., Rastrapathi Road, Secunderabad-0

¶17

...RE PONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayin that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit^filed therewith, the High urt may be pleased to issue a direction, order or writ rn6ls particularly in the nat re of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the^respondent officials in^provid ng hygienic environment by desiting of Nala/Drain^and not laying 2000 mm Dia eter sewer pipes to tackle the water logging problem from Nala Bazar to Ch ra Dargah, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad as arbitrary, illegal and viola ive of the

¶19

¶20

c,.o nstitutiona lly ensl^^-ined principles under the Arts i 4, "'9 and 21 and consequently direct t re respondents to take immediate steps for the desilting of drain/Nala and remo,al of garbage from the drain from the €)nsuing monsoon arrival on 07th June. 2019 and to pay 2000 mm dia sewer prpes to tackle the water logging proble n from Nala Bazar o'f Chitra Dargah. Rashtrapathi Road may pass any such o her order or orders as this Hon'ble Courl may deem fit and proper in the facts a rd circumstances of the instant case ard in the interest of justice , equity and w, rlfare of the citizens of the locality.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶22

Petition under Section^'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Coud may be pleased to direct the respondenl; No.1 to 3 to immediately execute the Surnmer Action Plan in the locality and c rrry out debris clearing in and around tl-re vicinity of the Drain/Nala from Nala Bazar to Chitra Dargah, Rashtrapathi Road and submit the users report this Ho r'ble Court, pending disposal of this V/rit Petition, in the interest of^justice.

¶23

lA No: 2 oF 2ll!!.

¶24

Petition under Section^'l 5'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Coud rnay be pleased to direct the GHMC Offi :ials more particularly Respondents No.1 to 3 to restore the 100 years old apprc rch road (40 Ft.Wide) to Nala Bazar dermolished by the unqualified contracto s employed by the GHMC Engineers to its original state i.e., by relaying the concrete roof on the exposed/open drain (Nala) in the interest and welfare c I the public.

¶25

Counsel for the Petit oner : SRl. B SUBASH

¶26

Counsel for the Restr ondent No.'l:SRl SRINIVASA SRIKANTH

¶27

AGP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN C'EV

¶28

Counsel for the Restr ondent Nos.2 & 3 :SRl CHATLA MADHtl, rSC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Resl ondent Nos.4 to 6 : SRI T SRIKANTH REDDY

¶29

AGP FOR HOMI:

¶30

The Court made the^' ollowing: ORDER

¶31

THE Ho N B LE TH E CHIEF JUSTIcE UJJAL B N AND

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR DT: Y

¶33

WRIT PETITION IPILI No.62 of 2O19

¶34

ORDER: Per the Hon'ble the ChteI JustL(E Ujjal Blugarl)

¶35

Heard Mr. B.Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Srinivasa Srikanth, learned sistant Government Pleader appearing for responde t No.1; Mr. Chatla Madhu, learned counsel appe ng lor respondents No.2 and 3; and Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Ple:rder for Home appe g for respondents No.4, 5 and 6.

¶36

This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation seeking the following relief:

¶37

"In view of the above it is prayed that Hon'ble Court may be^pleased to issue a directio order or writ more particularly in the nature of t of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent oflicials in providing hygie environment by desilting of nala/drain and n laying 2000 mm diameter sewer pipes to tackle

¶38

¶39

\r,ater lo iging problem from i'{ala Bazar tc, Chitra Dargah, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderaba<l as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the constitutic,nally enshrine C principles under the Articles 14, 1!) imd 21 and t onsequently direct the respondents to take immedia:e steps for the desilting of drain/nal:l and removal of garbage from the drain for the enstLing monsoolr arrival on O7m June, 2019 and to iay 2000 n m dia sewer pipes to tackle the water logging rroblem from Nala Bazar to Chitra Dargah, Rashtra rathi Road m:iji pass any such other order or orde: s as this Hon'ble Court ma.y deem fit and proper i r lhe facts and circumstances of the irrstant case ar d in the interest of justice, equitv and welfare )f the citizens of the locality."

¶40

Count:r affidavit has been hled by respondent No.3. Para 3raphs 3 to 6 of the countor aliicLavit read as uncer:

¶41

'3. I r reply to para 2 it is submitted that. the storm '.,rater drain from Secunderabad Flailway Statior-- is passing through the Nala Bazaar and connec -ing it to the Kalasiguda nala in Ramgo )alpet. With a Section 6'X 12'providr:d with chain ink mesh and at Edamma Bhairava Swamy temple to R.P.Road, some portion of nala is r;overed

¶42

with rcc slab so e flectively desilting was not done SO it is removed

¶43

rn In reply to para 3 it is submitted that Secunderabad from 3l bus stop to Nala B total nala is in open condition with chain link me h and rain water is flowing. freely up to Nala Bazaar R.P. road. Some ol the portion is closed with R C o slab, and obstructing rain water flow due accumulation of silt, garbage, plastic bottle etc. n nala and inundation occurred in internal lanes f Nala Bazaar.

¶44

In reply to para 4 it is submitted that c N regular, periodical desilting is taken up in the to avoid obstruction. After inspection was don e higher official as per the instructions, work been proposed to dismantle the nala by providi chain link mesh.

¶45

In reply to para 5 it is submitted that due dumping of garbage in nala by near by houses it accumulated under the closed slab. For clearing this silt provided opening on slab by whic removing silt by desilting labour due to dumping plastic covers and bags, coir, thermacole, water flowing in reverse direction and stagnating a low lying areas in Nala Bazaar. To avoid stagnatio problem as per the request of local resident proposed an estimate for dismantling of nala fo

¶46

¶47

-1

¶48

providine chain link mesh and work was stztrted and pres:ntly removing the^garbage from nala and also to avoid the inundation in Nala Bazaar. During t re rainy season to avoid stagnation proper grating L as been provided on R.P.Road to draj.n off the wate . Due to obstruction of garbage water was stagnatir .g so to remove the floating material and to clear sta Ination on R.P.Road."

¶49

Leanne, I counsel fcr respondents No.il and 3 submits tha. the said respondents are maintaining the drain trnd er rsuring that there is no stagnatic,n of water on the road.

¶50

Learnel counsel for the petitioner suomits that after filing^, rf the writ petition, respondents have kept the drain irL an open condition. As a result, there is overflowing of water from the drain on to the road leading to 'vater logging problem from Naia. Baz,aar to Chitra Darl ah, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderr,rbad.

¶51

After rearing learned counsel for the parties and on dlre cor sideration, we direct respondenl.s No.2 and

¶52

¶53

3 to regularly desiit the drain in the above oad and ensure that there is no ,"vater logging. Furthe ,^insofar the above road is concerned, the aforesaid a thorities shall ensure that the road is in a proper ndition having proper ingress and egress which can be used by the neighbouring residents.

¶54

With the above direction, writ petition is isposed of.

¶55

Miscellaneous applications pending, if an ,^shall stand closed. However, there shall be no ord rasto

¶56

costs.

¶57

SD/-T.KRIS KUM^I DEPU

¶58

//TRUE COPY// SECTI

¶59

To, 1. The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban lopment Department State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 02

¶60

1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, t CC Complex Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad-063

¶61

The Deputy Commissioner,, GHMC Circle No.1B, Beside CC Co rt Complex, Secunderabad-500 026

¶62

The Stat of Telangana,, Represented by its Principal Secretary, ome Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022

¶63

The Additional Commissioner of Police Traffic, Basheerbagh, H erabad-500 01

¶64

The SHO Mahankali Traffic P.S., Rastrapathi Road, Secundera d-03

¶65

One CC to SRl. B SUBASH Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

B. Two CCs to GP for Municipal^{Administration} and Urban Develop ent, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶67

Two CCs to GP for Home, High^Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶68

10.One CC to SRI CHATLA MADHU, SC FOR GHMC.[OPUC]

¶69

11.Two CD Copies

¶70

,7t /-^ Q^^-^ r^^r,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912022

ORDER

\ 2'i^{o['i 2$I1}

W.P.(PIL).No. 32 of 2019

¶76

DISPOSING^{)F THE WRIT PETITION(PIL) WITHOUT COSTS

¶77

( e
.-L-*

Nala Bazar Residents Welfare Association v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nala Bazar Residents Welfare Association 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. Binjusaria Extractions Ltd., Vs State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Hyd.( Now Tsrtc) Vs M. Ashalu

M/s. Ace Tyres Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner and 2 others

The Distance Education Council,Indira Gandhi National Vs a.P.State Council for Higher Education

Mohamad Abdul Raheman Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana