Disposed

Rachamalla Ashok v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jan 2024WP/84/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a municipal final order directing removal of deviated portions of a building. The court, without examining merits, relegated the petitioner to the statutory appeal under Section 252 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and restrained authorities from giving effect to the impugned order until expiry of the appeal time limit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of relegating petitioner to appeal under Section 252; respondents barred from giving effect to the impugned order till expiry of the 60-day appeal period.

Rachamalla Ashok Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:8422 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Velugam- Kanukaraju, S/o Aryaiah, aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, District, TS-505 [1q .H \o.1Q1]4, 301^{Sai Nagar, Sircirri iown} "nO rrrrahajr-'nrl-* Sircirrd

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep., by its prl. Secretary, I\Iunicipal Administration uepartment, Ietangana Secretariat, at Hyderabad, T S

¶12

2 The .Sirrcilla Municipality, Rep., by its Commissioner, Sircilla Town, Rajanna Sircilla District, TS,

¶13

) The Town Planning Officer, Siricilla Municipality, Sirci a Town, Rajanna Sircilla District, TSI

¶14

4 Velgam Srinivas, S/o. Rajesham, aged about 45 Vears. Occ. Business R/o. H.No. 10-2-45 sai Nagar, sirciila T6wn and [vrandar Rajanna sirciila District, TS-505 301

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High'cJurt may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the iespond"ni. ,oru particularly the respondent No.2 in issuing final order vide No.G1tDt1zt2o23, dated. 18-03-2024 by directing the petitioner to remove the deviated portions mentioned therein in the building bearing H No 10-2-44, admsg., Zti O Sq., yards, consisting with Ground + 2 floors, situated at sai Nagar Locitity of sircilla Town and lvlandal, within the limits of Sircilla Municipal council, Rajanna sircilla District, TS, constructed as per the letter of Approval for commencement of work dated.07 -01-2022 and Instant Building permission vide No. 63993/slRC/041812021, dated.31-07-2021 issued under TS b-pASS, without considering the reply/explanation, dated.l 4',03-2023 and without conducting site inspection, as highly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of relarigana IVI un icipalities Act, 2019 and violation of articles of constitution of lndia and set

¶17

aside the same and consequently direct the respondents more particularly the respondent No.2 & 3, not to rake coercive steps to remove/demolish the alllged deviated portion mentioned in the final order vide No.G'liD t17t2023, daied. 18-03-2024 issued by the respondent No.2 in any manner forthwith.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine Higrr court may be pleased to suspend the final order vide No. G1/D/17 12023, dat;d.18-03-2024 issued by the respondent No.2 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition_

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BETHT VENKATESWARLU

¶21

counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FoR MUNlclpAl ADM|NlsrRATloN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI B. JAGAN MADHAV RAO, SC FOR SIRICILLA MUNICIPALITY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - - - -

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

.: t'

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶27

WzuT PETITION No. 8422 of 2024

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Writ Petition is hled aggrieved by the frnal order, dt.18.O3.2O24,^{passed by the 2"d respondent,} as^{being illegal and} arbitrary,^{with a consequentialrelief to set aside the same} ald^{direct the} respondents^{not to take coercive stepsto demolishthe allegeddeviated} portion^pursuant to the^{said hnal order.}

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader^{for Municipal Administration and UrbanDevelopment appearing} for respondent^{No. 1, Sri B.Jagar-r Madhav Rao, Iearned StandingCounsel,} appearing^{for respondentsNo.2} &^{3, and with their consentthe Writ} Petition^{is taken up for hearingar1d disposal at admission stage.}

¶31

3_ Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission^{stage, arrd the lis involved.in this Writ Petition, this Courtis of} the view^{that notice to unofficialrespondent No.4 is not necessarJr for} adjudicatron^{of the presentWritPetition.}

¶32

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without delving into the^meritsof the^{malter, since the petitionerhasa remedyof appeal} under Section²⁵² of^{tL,e TelanganaMunicipalities Act, 2019 (for short} 'the Act'), against the impugned^proceeding; that admittedly, the petitioner drd not avail the said remedy; and that as it is not shown to this Court^{of the sard remedyof appeal is inefhcacious, this Courtis of}

¶33

¶34

¶35

the view that the petitioner should be relegated to avail the^{remedy of} appeal under Section 252 of the Act.

¶36

Gralting liberty to the petitioner as aforesaid,^{the WritPetition is} disposed of. It is made clear that since the Act itself^{provides timeframe} for hling of an appeal within 6O days from the date of receipt of the order, the respondents authorities cannot give effect to the rmpugned order,^till the expiry of the time limit prescribed under Section 252 of the Act.^No order as to costs.

¶37

It is also made clear t1-at this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of re claim of the petilioner.

¶38

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petirion sha.lj stand croscd'

¶39

^rr:Bi-X*+ESEffitR^r, ,,TRUE^coPY// .ECTIop'oFFICER

¶40

To, 1.2 iHrt'.m^{j;i#+t##,nflil'31}i!':i"'ti;:[T;j:'::""'}

¶41

2 J ?iriclwr"ar,r"nins^{officer, Siriclra Municiparity, sircilla Town, Ralanna} 4( ititss':ilEffi^{[,,!'$ffi]",ffi '"':ffsiiffi 8f, "}

¶42

6.^{Two CD CoPies}

¶43

BN BS

Y4,

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210412024

frt E ! | ira a i:r
(
,<br>5
o0 $3 npl ryl tl
l' ,t/
. ',,'1
+ +'

¶49

ORDER

¶50

WP.No.8422 ot 2024

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

q.dnt

¶53

s\^D!

Rachamalla Ashok v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachamalla Ashok 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

Smt.S.K.Afroz Begum, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Jaffar Sharif Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Ashoka Travels Vs The Board of Control for Cricket in India

Toddy Tappers Co- Operative Society Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Avula Krishna Sagar Vs The State of Telangana

Amer Khan, Vs The State of Telangana