Allowed

Katla Rajitha v. The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Sept 2023WP/20599/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders and notices issued by the Lokayukta and Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation to stop the petitioner's construction work, holding that the Lokayukta lacks jurisdiction under the Telangana Lokayukta Act to entertain grievances regarding construction activities.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 28-12-2022 and 31-03-2023 passed by the Lokayukta and the notices dated 27-03-2023 and 20-06-2023 passed by the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation are hereby quashed.

Katla Rajitha Vs The Honble Lokayukta for… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

133771

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

{

¶7

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 20599 OF 2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

Katla Rajitha, W/o. Sadaiah, Age 45^years, Occ; Housewife, R/o.H.No.6-8/1 A, Ramakrishnapur, Chityal Mandal, Warangal^District. .....PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Hon'ble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana, Represented by^its Registrar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The State of Telangana, Rep, by its Principal Secretary,^lVlunicipal Administration and Urban Development Authority Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

3 Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Rep. by^its Commissloner, Warangal District,

¶16

4 Smt. Bopparathi Vijayalaxmi, W/o. Suryanarayana, Aged^{about 67 years,} Housewife, Rr/o.H.No.^{11 -21 -11} 1, Kashibussa, warangal ?ll[BS53iuo.*r.

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^{Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside orders, dated. 28-12-2022 and 31-03-2023^passed by the lst respondent directing the 3rd respondent to stop construction work of the petitioner in the open^plot admeasuring to 195-75 Sq. yards in Sy. Nos. 258/C, situated at Enumamula Village, Warangal Mandal (previously Hanamkonda Mandal) and District and consequently declare the notices(lntimation), dated. 271312023 and 2O/OG12023 issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner as null and void.

¶18

(

¶19

l.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may t,e pleased to direct the 3'd respondent not to obstruct or stop the building construction work of the petitioner tn the open plol admeasuring to 195-25 Sq yards in Sy. Nos. 25BlC, situated at Enumamula Village, Warangal Mandal (previously Hanamkonda Mandal) and District.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R.Nagendra Chary

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : Sri padala pravin Kumar

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No_2 : Sri pasham Krishna Reddy, Gp For Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Sri S.Surender Reddy

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/s. Sivalenka Associates

¶26

The Court made the following Order :-

¶27

I I I I

¶28

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶29

AND

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SH RAVAN KUMAR

¶31

{

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.20599 of 2o.23

¶33

ORDER.. (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

¶34

Mr. R.Nagendra Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

Mr. Padala Pravin Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.

¶36

Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Government pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department for respondent No.2.

¶37

Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

¶38

With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is heard hnally.

¶39

In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the orders dated 28.t2.2O22 and 31.03.2023 passed by Lokal'ukta, State of Telangana, directing the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, respondent No.3 hereir-r, by

'i9,i

(

(

(hlch the^{petitioner has been asked to stop constructionrtork} in open^{plot admeasuring195'75 square yards inSurvey} No.258/C,^{situated at Enumamula Village' WarangalMandal} Mandal)^{and District untilfurther} (plcviousll'^Hanamkonda orders of^LokaYukta.

¶45

4 . Admittedly,^{under the provisions of the 1'elangana} Lokal'ukta^{Act, 1983, Lokayukta has no power to etrtertaina} grievance^{rvith regard to consl'ruction'}

¶46

The aforesaid^{legal position has not been contested} bl learned^{counselwho appears for Lokayuktaas q ell '}

¶47

Therefore, it^{is evidentthat the Lokayukta had no} authority^{to issue the impugned orders dated 28 12 '2022 ard} 31 .O3.2023^{and consequently the Greater Warangal Municipal} Corporation^{had no duthorityto issue the impugrted notices} dated. 27.O3-2O23^{and' 20'06'2023 based on the d:rections of} the LokaYukta.

¶48

7 . For the aforementioned^{reasons'orrfersdated} 28.12.2022 and^{31.03.2023 passed by Lokayukta and notices} dated27.03.2023and,20.06.2023passedbyGreat.:rWarangal

¶49

¶50

{

¶51

Municipal Corporation are hereby quashed. Ho,,r.,e'er, needless to state that the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to exercise its powers to stop any illegal construction under the provisions of Greater Hyderabad

¶52

Municipal Corporation Act, i955.

¶53

Accordingly, the Writ petition is allou,ed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT.REGISTRAR <-1p

¶57

SECTION OFFICER

¶58

¶59

The Registrar, Hon'ble Lokayukta for the Stale of Telangana, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶60

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority Dept. Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶61

The Commissioner, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal District.

¶62

Two CC's to G.P For Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶63

One CC to Sri R.Nagendra Chary, Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

One CC to M/s. Sivalenka Associates (OPUC)

¶66

One CC to Sri S.Surender Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶67

Two CD Copies

SA GJP b

HIGH COURT

f DATED:o4to9r2oz3

ORDER

WP.No.20599 of 2023

-,--::-- a---a.--. --
i l:,"
',.'. , \ 9
',: .,
-.9
,(:"
l.t--
<br>,.'
<br>:) t{
)

¶75

ALLOWING THE W.P

¶76

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶77

cp81., @ c

Katla Rajitha v. The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katla Rajitha v. The Honble Lokayukta for 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawab Tajamufuddin khan@ N.M. Moinuddin Khan, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Chalichimala Mallesha and 2others Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

Mohammed Rafiq Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Katla Rajitha Vs The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Kishan (Died Per Lrs) and 4 Others Vs the Government of a.P., Tribal Welfare Dept., and 3 Others

Peechara Hanumantha Rao Vs Co-operative Electric Supply Society (Cess)