Dismissed

G.Jeevith Reddy v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC13 Feb 2023CC/1201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of an order directing GHMC to act against unauthorized construction. Court found order substantially complied via a notice issued to the builder. Petitioner allowed to intervene in related writ proceedings. Petition dismissed and case closed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dismissed, the contempt case is closed, and miscellaneous petitions are closed. Petitioner allowed to intervene in V.P. No. 3397 of 2023.

G.Jeevith Reddy Vs The Commissioner — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IVONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶5

CONTEM PT CASE NO:^{1201 OF 2022}

¶6

contempt case^{under sections10 to 12 of contemptof courtsAct to punish} the Contemnors^{for their willful disobedienceof the orders of the HighCourt dt} 13-12-2021^{passed in WP (PIL).No- 40 of 2019}

¶7

Between:

¶8

G.Jeevith Reddy,^{S/o. G. Dharma Reddy,Aged-} .about^{63..years, Occ'} Ariin"ss,^{Ft/o.H.No.'129,Amar Society, KavuriHills, Madhapur, Hyderabad'}

¶9

. ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri Lokesh^{Kumar D.S.,The Commissioner' Greater Hyderabad Municipal} Corporation, Lower^{Tank Bund, Hyderabad.}

¶12

Sri.D.Samson,^{The Assistant City Planner, Circle-'10, Banjara Hills,} Hyderabad.

¶13

...CONTEMNORS

¶14

Counsel^{for the Petitioner :M/S RAJA GOPALLAVAN TAYI}

¶15

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.'l and 2: Mr. K. RAVINDER REDDY (SC FOR} GHMC)

¶16

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶17

¶18

TITE-I 'B E IE UST E B IJ.UY,4.N

¶19

AND

¶20

]^HE HON,BLE SRIJUSTICE N.TUKARA{,iI

¶21

C o.72 of2

¶22

ORDER, rPrr /e 1^'on'bh rhe Cbie/Jt:tice rJjjat Bhryan)

¶23

He:ard dr. Raja Gopallavan T'ayr, learnecl c()lrnsijl for the pcutioner and Mr. I(Ravinder Reddy, learned Standrrr,l C,runscl for Greater I lydr rabad Municipal Corporarion (GI j\ t(.) for the rcspondenrs.

¶24

2 This pet tion alleges willful and delibcrarr. non-r ompliance bv the respondcnrs ro the order o[ this Courr dare .l 13 . .2 20111 passcd in \' P.(PIl) N o.4Cr of 2019.

¶25

C)rdcr dared 13.12.2027 rcads as follorvs

¶26

'I'h: petitioner before this Courr has filc j rht prcscnr u'ril petition stating that the respondr:nt^.r.o 3 h,rs c()r rstructed a building contran ro rrrc l)u rl(linll plan. It has been stated that thc Crcarcr [ [rtlc.rlrarl NIunicil ,al Corporation (GI-{MC)/rcspon(l.nr N ). is n()t takj 1g any action in thc matter and rhr.relirr,, rlrc prcscnt writ petidon has becn filed.

¶27

\ rounrer affidavit has bcen tllcJ br irr. rcspond:nt No.3. The respondent No. j hlis adn irrccl

¶28

¶29

<br>

¶30

the unauthoriscd^{construcdonin rtspect ofthe} building^{in question. Howcver,it hastreer-rstated that} the respondent^{No.3 has subrrutted an applicauon on} 26.12.2015^{fot regularisationof consLrttt:'ionand they} are rcady to^{pay the penalcharges as dcmandedby} theGHMC.

¶31

The counter^{a fFrdavit filed by the GHNIC is also} on recold^{and thc same revcalstilat there is} unauthorized^{construcd'on in rcspect of ttre building} in question^{and they have already issltednotices'}

¶32

In the light^{of the aforesaid, thc GIIN{C is} directed to^{takeapproPriate acdonin accordaocewith} law in respect^{of the unauthorisedconstruction} ' within^a period^{of sixry days from todav}

¶33

On^{10.01.2023,this Court had issucdnodce withthe} observation^{that pendency o[ thc conternPtcascrvouldnot be a bar} to comply^{with the otdcr o[ tl'ris Court} [or the resPondents d*ed 73.12.2021^{md further dircctingthat both the respondents} shall remain Present^ln Person^{beforc this Court on 13'02'2023} at 10:30 a.m.

¶34

¶35

¶36

-5.^{In ten x} of^{the aforesaid} ordeq Sn Loiiesh^Kumar, C-ommissione' oi Greater Hyderabad Municip:l C>lporarion (GFilUq and Sri I).Samson, Assistant GtyPlanner ir.'(, presenr.

¶37

6 We hav: been informed that Depury Crmrruss:ioner, Grcle18 of GHI IC has issued norice dated 24.0120.13 under Sections a52(l) and 636 of the Greater Hjdera[':rd Municipal (irrporation trct, 1955 to IVIls. Namitha Builders srrrir g rhar ics request lor re gularization of unauthorized consrru(l.ion made in deviation of tl re sanctioned plan cannot be consider:,i; rhe prayar has been reje, ted; and consequently, the notice hrr:; be en issued clirt:cting N4l: . Narrutha builders to pull down/ re nrove the rrnl-rthonz.ed⁽ onstruction.^'We have also been inir, rnetl that the above notice^(ated 24.01.2023 is under challenge in^{\it/.P.No.ll97} of 202-l

¶38

7 At this s -age., Mr. Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learn,r:l counsel for the petirioner s -rbmits that he may be permined to par:iciprte in the proceedings in $fl.P.No.3397 of 2023. However, this subnrission of le:rmed couns:[ for the petitioner is seriously^(],.)ntcsted by

¶39

¶40

¶41

Mr. D.Srinivas, Ieamed Senior C-ounsel, who appean for the petitioners in V.P.No.3397 of 2023.

¶42

While we are of the view that order of this C-oun dated 13.12.2021 has been substantially complied with by the respondents, we give Iiberry to the petitioner to intervene in the proceedings of V.P.No.3397 of 2023.

¶43

Subject to the above, the contempt case is closed. No costs.

¶44

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

¶45

closed.

¶46

Sd/. M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (g

¶47

SECTIdN OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

One CC to M/S. RAJA GOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to Mr. K. RAVINDER REDDY^(SC FOR GHMC),^Advocate IOPUCI

¶51

Two CD Copies.

Njb

HIGH COUR'-

DATE D : 1 3l0itl2t23

¶58

::,.
1 EL,!ii
!i sa )
L7
i i,u a
t=
a_.:
.,:r
.1t
l.f:2 v1c
*i"

¶59

ORDER

¶60

CC.No.1201 <fi 2022

¶61

CLOSING TH E CONTEMPT^(;ASE.

¶62

re) &o 1 $

G.Jeevith Reddy v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Jeevith Reddy v. The Commissioner

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

In Re..... Vs Naser, Hyd and 105 Others

Gudipalli Rajendra Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Cma K. Raghavender Reddy Vs The Secretary

Bhushal Singh Vs The Telangana State

The Telangana State Wakf Board Vs Bandaru Subba Rao and 2 others

The Telangana State Wakf Board Vs G. Madhavi ,Geedi Madhavi Goud