Writ petition sought a mandamus directing municipal authorities to act on a complaint about unauthorised construction by respondent No.4. After learning that respondent No.4 had obtained construction permission, the petitioner sought withdrawal; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[,,
t3168 l
1
t
HIGH COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPeciai OriginalJurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THETWENWTHIRD DAY OF OCTOBER " -"''- TWo iHousnNo lt'to TWENTY FouR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITIONNO:238850F2024
Between:
K. NaresnKumaf, ??,, 53iX13,,81il'tf, s"t'3J:,:1" 1,:o*'3&%0 5" Employee,R/o. H lNo
...PETITIONER
AND
Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavitfiled therewith' the HighCourt maybe pleased toissue a writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of WR|ToFMANDAMUSdeclaringtheactionofthe3rdrespondentinnottaking any actionon thecomplain I' daled27 06'2024lodged by the petitionerventrlatrng that the4th respondentis proceeding with the unauthorized/ illegal construction in respect ofH No.6-7-228,35/B situated at Bansilalpet' Secunderabadbut no action hasbeen initiatedby the3rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and againstto theprovisionsof GHMC Act and consequentlydir€ct the 3rd respondentto stop theunauthorized/illegalconStructionofthe4threspondentinrespectofHNo6. 7 -228. 35tBsituated at Bansilalpet'Secunderabad
lA NO:'l OF2024
Petition under Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin the affidavitfiled in supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto direct the officialrespondents to consider the representation, dated 27.06.2024ot the petitioner to stopthe unauthorized/ illegal construction of the 4th respondent in respect of H.No.6-7- 228,35,Bsituatedat Bansilalpet' Secunderabad, pending finalization of the WritPetition
Counsel tor the Petitioner:SRl. NARENDARJALLI
Gounsel for the RespondentNo.l:GP FOR MUNICIPAL AOMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the RespondentNos. 2&3: SRI K. RAVINDER REDDY' SC
The Court made the following:ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.23885 of 2o24
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 3.d respondent in not taking any action on the complaint, dated 27.06.2024 lodged by the petitioner ventilating that the 4rh respondent 1S proceeding with the unauthorized/illegal construction in respect of H.No.6-7228, 35 lB situated at Bansilalpet, Secunderabad, but no action has been initiated by the 3'd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and against to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently direct the 3'd respondent to stop the unauthorized/ illega,l construction of the 46 respondent in respect ol H.No.6-7-228, 35 lB situated at Bansilalpet, Secunderabad
W.P.No.23885 of 2024
2
municipal area there are about three thousand buildings and all of them do not have anypermissionfrom Municipality including thepetitioner andrespondent No.4. Ttrerefore, respondent Nos.2 and3 will take action against them in accordance withlaw.
SO/.N. SRIHARI //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT\REGISTRAR ,/
SECTION OFFICER
To,
L One CC to SRl. NARENDAR JALLI, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Hrgh Courl for the State of Telanqana. at Hyderabad [OUT] 3. ONC CC tO SRI K. RAVINDER REDDY,SC IOPUCI" 4. Two CD Copies BM II
@-i
.---_------\
l
,
(
HIGH COURT
DATED:2311012024
ORDER
WP.No.23885 of 2024
I raE .-'1 (
r)c
0I rt8 z[?i
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONAS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 3rd respondent's inaction on the complaint dated 27.06.2024 against alleged unauthorised construction was illegal and arbitrary.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K. Narender Kumar
State of Telangana (Municipal Administration)
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
K. Lakshman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
