Disposed

Lailaunnisa Begum v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024WP/5558/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by residents of G-Block, Shastripuram, challenging the longer delay in laying drainage pipes. The Court took the defendants version that the work was sanctioned

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of on the undertaking by the respondents that the drainage work will be commenced within 15 days. No costs awarded.

Lailaunnisa Begum Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

13166I

¶2

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

¶3

I\4ONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5558 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

La]launnisa Begum, Wo Kashif Ali, Aged about 35 years, Occ Household, R/o. H.No.8-15-321770, G-Block, Shastripuram, [t/a ila rdevulapa lli, Rajendranagar Circle, R.R Dist

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prrncipal Secretary, tVunicipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by Commissioner Near Tankbund, Hyderabad

¶13

The Zonal Commissioner, G.H.N/-C, Charminar Zone, H.No. 1 8-1 -4361 161 1 I A, Opp NAC Building, Nirqui Phool Bagh, Cahndrayangutta, Hyderabad - 50000s

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Charminar Zone, Rajendranagar Circle - 11 at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad

¶15

The Executive Engineer, GHMC, Charminar Zone, Circle-1 1, 89CX-QH6, Ra.jendranagar Road, Agriculture Research lnstitute Quarters, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500030

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the Nature of Writ of IVandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in not considering the representation dt 2410112024 made by the petitioner and pending the drainage pipeline works in G-Block, Shastripuram, It/ailardevulapalli, Rajendranagar Circle, R.R Dist and abandon the cement drainage pipes on the roads for the last six months of is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the GHIVC Act,

¶18

vrolation of principres of naturar justice besides vioration of the principres of natural justice and consequenfly direct the respondents No. 2 to 5 to comprete the drainage pipe line work in G-Block, Shastripuram, Mailardevulapalli, Rajendranagar circre, R.R Dist by considering the representation of the petitioner dated dt 2410112024.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents No.2 to 5 to comprete the drainage pipe Iine work in G- Block, Shastripuram, [\4ailardevulapalli, Rajendranagar Circle, R.R Dist by considering the representation of the petitioner dated dr:24t01/2024.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.MADHU SUDHAN RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No..l : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.2ro5 ,SS,."#JF[: KUMAR vEERJALA,

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.5558 ot2024

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No s.2 to 5 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated24-01-2024 and not taking up the work of laying

¶29

of drainage pipe line in G-Block, Shastripuram, Mailardevulapalli, Rajendranagar Circle, Ranga Reddy District and abandoning the cement drainage pipes on the roads for the last six months, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 195 5 and violation of principles of natural^justice

¶30

Heard leamed counsel for petitioner, leamed Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development

¶31

appearing on behalf of respondent No.l and Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5, and perused the record. With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

¶32

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner in brief is that the respondent authorities did not take up the works

¶33

¶34

of laying drainage pipeline ln G-Block, Shastripuram, Mailardevulapalli, Rajendranagar Circle while the work of laying underground drainage was taken up in other areas

¶35

It is the furlher case of petitioner that not only the respondent authorities did not take up the work of laying drainage pipeline in petitioner's area, on the other hand, the Authorities have abandoned the cement drainage pipes on roads for the last six months, due to which the colony people are facing hardship to use the roads more particutarly the children sustaining injuries due to falling of the pipes, which have been kept open on the roads.

¶36

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 by placing the written instructions under the signature of the 5th respondent dated, 18-03-2024, submits that the work of drainage pipeline pertaining to G-Block, Shastripuram, Mailardevulapalli, Rajendranagar Circle, GHMC, Hyderabad was already sanctioned and the said work was allotted to a contractor by narne Mohammed Hussain by calling for tenders through e-procurement process.

¶37

By the aforesaid written instructions, it is further stated that it is the said Agency, to whom the contract has been awarded,

I I

had procured the pipes and other material for taking up the work at the site, however, as the Contractor had fallen sick and hospitalized due to ill-health, the Contractor could not take up

¶42

the work.

¶43

Learned Standing Counsel, by the aforesaid written instructions, would further submit that the Authorities have taken note of the non-commencement of the work and that the work would be commenced within 15 days.

¶44

The aforesaid submissions made to this Court by the leamed Standing Counsel through the written instructions under the signature of the 5th respondent are taken on record.

¶45

Having regard to the submissions made as above, and since

¶46

the respondent authorities by their written instructions have indicated to this Court that the work relating to the laying of drainage pipeline pertaining to G-Block, Shastripuram, Mailardevulapalli, Rajendranagar Circle has akeady been sanctioned and also contract having been awarded to a Contractor and that the work would be commenced within 15 days, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities should be directed to comply with the aforesaid submissions made to this Court by their written instructions.

¶47

¶48

Subject to above directions, the Writ Petition^{is disposed of.}

¶49

No costs

¶50

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions pending if any shall}

¶51

stand closed.

¶52

SD/. P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶53

i/TRUE^COPY//

¶54

SECTI{,,,",*

¶55

To, 1 The PrinciPal^{Secretary,Muni} crpal Administration^{Department'Secretariat'} 2 Siale ihe ot Commissioner.^{Telangana.Hyd-erabadGreater} Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation'Near} 3 Tf,!-9513i^{3X*";i3Sr3""..,c H.rv.c charminar.Zone,H.No1 8-1 -436t16t 1t A,} Opp NAC^{Building, rtrir.q'i'pnoo]' 6'gh' C'hnOr.ayangutta'Hyderabad -}

¶56

"^{?fl3033r*, commissioner,GHIVIC' charminarZone'Raiendranagarcircle-} - ii .iCii""dranagar' HYderabad 5. The^{Ex6cutive Engineei'"'Cffi'fCCharminar ZoneCircle-11 89CX-OH6'} Raiendranaqar^{no'0. ag'ltiiu'"i"I"""nlnstituteOuarters' Raiendranagar'} Hvilerabad^{- 500030500030}

¶57

Hvilerabad^{- 500030500030}

¶58

n ohe CC to^{SRI B TMADHU SUDHANRAQ,ld1999tetoPUCl}

¶59

T Two ccs^{to GP ron ildp"r-"n"oivr'ruHanN orv' High couh for the state ot} . 3?383i3^{{RIJhou,.*KUIMARVEERJALA, SC FoR GHI\iIC.[OPUC]}

¶60

Two^{CD CoPies.} BSK

I I I I I I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810312024

a 1 H E S TA 14:
o
Y
)
6(
oo 03 APn m4
za
t *
spAtcHEO

¶67

ORDER

¶68

WP.No.5558 of 2024

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

Lailaunnisa Begum v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lailaunnisa Begum v. 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

T. Anusha Vs The State of Telangana

Varikuppala Buchiramulu, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.Basireddy Ram Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Khandesh Sangitha Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Racharla Prameela Vs The State of Telangana

Gudipati Mallareddy Vs The State of Telangana