Dismissed

Smt. Mallepally Lalitha v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC20 Jul 2023WP/34243/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inflow of sewerage water into Vanam Cheruvu lake. The Court noted that construction of a Sewerage Treatment Plant had commenced and was expected to complete by end of 2023. Consequently, the petition was disposed of directing respondents to prevent sewage inflow until the plant is operational.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to ensure that sewerage water does not enter the Vanam Cheruvu water body.

Smt. Mallepally Lalitha Vs The State of… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ABHTNAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:34243 OF 2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. Mallepally Lalitha, W/o.Sri. M. Somi Reddy, aged 43 years, Occ. Chairperson of Tellapur Municipal Council, R/o.H.No.3126, MlG, Phase 2, Road No.2, Vidyut Nagar, TELLAPUR, R.C.Puram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District-32

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . the State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶15

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Swama Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500038. Rep. by its Commissioner

¶16

The Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Paryavaran Bhavan, A-3, lndustrial Estate,Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad -18. Rep. by its Chairman.

¶17

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500004 Rep. by its Managing Director.

¶18

The District Collector, Sanga Reddy Sanga Reddy District.

¶19

The Tellapur Municipal Council, Tellapur-500032. Rep. by its Commissioner

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 ot 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by directing the Respondents to protect Vanam Cheruvu lake from the inflow of sewerage water into it from the outflows of colonies of Nallagandla village area by establishing Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) to Vanam Cheruvu of Tellapur Village, further by directing Respondents No. 2 to 5 to mandate STP while giving permissions for layout and construction of buildings in Nallagandla Village

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.2 to 5 not to give permissions without STP to any buildings pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M. VENKAT DIVAKAR

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No. 2: SRl. PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: G. NARENDER^{REDDY, SC FOR HMDA}

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI. PRANAV^{MUNIGALA, SC FOR STATE} POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRl. T. SUDHAKAR^{REDDY, SC FOR HMWS} Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: GP^{FOR REVENUE}

¶28

Counset for the Respondent No. 7: SRl. N.^{PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR} MUNICIAPLITY

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEFJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶31

AND

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶33

W.P.No.34243 OF 2021

¶34

ORDER: per tbe Hon'bb tlx Ating Cbief I ztle ,4bbirund Ktnar Sbawb)

¶35

This writ petition is filed seeking rhe following relief:

¶36

". .. . to o,* . V.;t O'a"r or Direcrion rca panrut:rty one in r}re natw of 'wn of l&,&mus bydireoing rhc spondems ro pore..,van ln Orruv!, lake tmm uhe inlbw of sewnge uater ino ir fmm r}e outtbrs o[ colonies ot N,I2sandla Vil2re ,ra by esEbbhing }qtrlse T@rmem plen (sTp) ro Vamm Crruw ot Tellapu Vi[:ge, ard Iunher (llel:dng Esponde Nos.2 to 5 to m:n&re Sr" w{ih dving permissbro for lapur and coNnction ol buildings in Nallasadli Villagc and prss srrh othcr order or onlen rs rhis Ilontle coun &rrr fn ud proper"

¶37

Fleard Sri MVenl<at Divakar, leamed counsel appearing for the peritioner, Sri G.Narender Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3.d respondent and Sri Pranav Munigala, leamed Startding Counsel for Telangana State Pollution C-ontrol Board appearing for the 4i respondent.

¶38

It is the case of the peritioner that there is a water body called Vanam Cheruvu in Tellapur Village and without

¶39

¶40

establishing Sewerage'lieatment Plant, thr: respondents aliowed the inflow of sewerage water into the Vanam Chenrvu-..rater body, due to which, the people in the nearby localities are suffering l'rom water contaminated diseases and other diseases. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶41

Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner^had contended that appropriate orders be^{passed in the writ} petition by directing the respondens to^{constmct/establish} Sewerage f reatment Plant in the^{said waterbody and not to} allow the seserage water into the said^{water body.}

¶42

Learaed Standing C-ounsel appearing^{for the 3'd} respondent^ on instructions, had^{contendedthat work has} commenced for establishing Sewerage Treatment^Plant during October,2022 and the same is likelyto^{[>e completed} bythe end of 2023.

¶43

Flaving considered the rival submissions^{madeby the} leamed counsel on either side, this C-oun is of^{the viewthat}

¶44

¶45

since the respondenr are taking effective sreps to complete

¶46

the construction of Sewerage Treatmenr Plant by the end of 2023, the presenr writ petition can be disposed of direcring the responden$ to ensure that the sewerage water does not

¶47

enter into the water bodyv'r2., Vanam Cheruvu.

¶48

Accordingly, the /rit Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶49

Miscellaneous petitions, i any, pending shall stand

¶50

closed.

¶51

SD/-A.V.S.^P SAD ASSISTANT^REGI RAR

J //TRUE COPY//

SEGTION FFICER

To,

The Principal^{Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development'} Secretariat,^HYderabad.

¶56

Secretariat,^HYderabad.

¶57

1. The Commissioner,^{6i"'t"tHyderabad Municipal Corporation' Lower Tank} Bund, HYderabadHYderabad

¶58

Bund, HYderabadHYderabad

¶59

1. ih; c;;;i.iion"r,^{Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Swama} " irvr.ti c6rii"x, s"ni.te'l neaoy Nta'gar' Srinivasa Nagar' Ameerpet'

¶60

. +il3"ifl:?L;::?3i"1n"",^{state porurion conrror Board, paryavaranBhavan,} ' n-'e', indrttr"l Estate'sanath Nagar'.Hyderabad -18'

¶61

6 The [Ianaoino Oirecibi]iiiibiiOit'Vtitropolitan^{Water Supply and Sewerage} - il;A Kha'irtalad, Hvderabad - 500004

¶62

-OEV

¶63

gTffi 3*,H":.",#:i"i"ffi^{g:,$i3*t:i3i!,.ftii+[,Pq;l[-lb.qq,} ,Hi'gh^{Courtfor the Stateof}

¶64

B. Two CCs^{to Gp FOR"MUiiADUr"liUnEnrl} Telanqana. [OUT]

¶65

Telanqana. [OUT]

¶66

s. i;;'ic; t"'cF^{Fon REVENUE ,High court for the State of Telangana,at} Hvderabad [OUTI

¶67

ro.iji,"e'cttJ^{bnr' rr,t. verurnrDIvAKAR'AdvocatetoPUCl} i;:il; d6 i" sni.^{iAsfrAil knTsnun REDDY'STANDTNG couNSEL} rOPUC'I

¶68

rz.b",i""di to sRl.^{c. NARENDER} BEPPY-.IIAIDING^{corJN-sEl-19.q!-cr} i5.5;;66 6^{sFii.PRANAIMui'itG[tt qUlprNGcouNSELtoPUCl} 14.one cc^{to sRl. r. siJ'D'tidiAR neoQv'^g11ryDlNGcouNSELtoPUCl} 15.One CC^{to SRt. N FFIV'EENi kuirrilnn,brnruolNG couNSELTOPUC]} 16. Two CD^CoPies

BM s+^,-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010712023

ORDER

WP.No.34243 ot 2021

,69 STAT -i)
I
,l
lx
ic rt lus NB :-,!
!L,
.tt,//
/
,./

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶76

TY\A
Y)
t
\o

Smt. Mallepally Lalitha v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mallepally Lalitha v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

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

Chimata Karunakar Vs The State of Telangana

Kolisetty Koushal, Vs The State of Telangana

S. Anil Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rudrapratap Indian Logistics (Hyderabad) Private Limited Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Mr Asif Shaikh Vs Union of India

Bolagani. Venkata Raghavendra Rao Vs The State of Telangana