The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging inaction by GHMC on illegal structures as infructuous, accepting the petitioner's submission that the cause did not survive.
Petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
[3168 ]
)
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION NO:4270 OF 2013
Between:
Sajid Hussain, S/o Kursheed Hussain, Aged about 50years, OccBusiness, Adij Shop No.l, Princess Durreshwara Complex, Opp BiyabaniBagh, Bogulkunta Crossroad, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitf iled therewith,the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction moreparlicularly onein the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of theofficial respondentsin removing the illegal structure erected by the respondentno.4 in the corridor of the premises Princess Durreshwara Complex, Opp- Biyabani Bagh' Bogulkunta Crossroad, Hyderabad and also thefootpath,whichis illegal, arbitraryand contrary to law and also in violation ofArticle14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Consequently, Consequently, direct the officialrespondentsto consider the petitioners application daled 27-11-2012and also direct them to take appropriate action against the illegal structure erectedby the respondent no.4in the corridor of the premises Princess DurreshwaraComplex,Opp:Biyabani Bagh, Bogulkunta Crossroad, Hyderabadin accordancewith law.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 5336 OF 2013)
Petition under Section t 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the official respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated 27-11-2012 and also direct them to take appropriate action against the illegal structure erected by the respondent no.4 in the corridor of the premises Princess Durreshwara Complex, Opp: Biyabani Bagh, Bogulkunta Crossroad, Hyderabad and also the footpath in accordance with law pending disposal of the writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, REP. FOR SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI K.RAVINDER REDDY, sc FoR gHMC
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI JAYESH BHATT
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION N0.4270 OF 2013
ORAL ORDER:
Mr. Lakshminarayan4 leamed counsel representingMr M.A.K. Mukheed, leamed counsel for thepetitioner,on instructions, would submit that the cause in thepresent writ petitiondoes not survive and thereby writpetitionhas becomeinfructuous.
Recording the aforesaid submission, this wdtpr:tition is
dismissed as infructuous. In the circumstarr"".of thc case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneouspetitions,if any,pending in
this writ petition shall stand closed
//TRUE COPY//
SD/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISIRAR :}SECTION OFFICER
/
To,
1 One CC to SRIM.A.K.MUKHEED,Advocate [OPUC] 2 One CC to SRIK.RAVINDERREDDY' SC FOR GHMC [OPUC]
J One CC to SRIJAYESH BHATT, Advocate IOPUCI 4 Two CD Cooies BSR (A-
(A-
LS
HIGH COURT
DATED: 1611012024
ORDER
.\ e L4a1
.i'
Ar I
s
ou u)
F sCJ .J
LL q
{ \a *
, ', FI o
WP.No.4270 of2013
DTSMISSING THEWRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS, WITHOUT COSTS YI ffil>u 6 cuPi-o>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives given the petitioner's submissions regarding the cause of action.
Whether the High Court should issue writs mandamus directing removal of illegal structures erected by respondent no. 4.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sajid Hussain
The Commissioner, GHMC
The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No. B, GHMC
J Assistant City Planner, Circle No. 9, GHMC
Saleem
K. Lakshman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
