Disposed

Bmr Enclave Residents Welfare Assn v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Apr 2025WP/11102/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A residents' welfare association sought a mandamus to realign a proposed box drain along the Nagaram main road rather than through its colony, citing health hazards from drain water. The court declined to decide technical alignment issues and directed respondents to examine the association's representations and communicate the decision.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine petitioner's representations dated 26.04.2024, 06.05.2024 and 10.05.2024 regarding box drain alignment, if proposal not finalised, and communicate decision; no costs.

Bmr Enclave Residents Welfare Assn Vs The State… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C,V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11102 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. BMR ENCLAVE RESIDENTS WELFARE aged 52^{years, ASSN,(Regd. No.} 74712013 Rep. by its President, Sri K.V. Joy^(Aged about 52^{years)BMREnclave,} Rampally X Road, Nagaram, Keesara^{(Medchal -Malkajgiri} )-⁵⁰⁰⁰⁸³

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary^{(lrrigation Dept),} Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶13

The Hyderabad Municipal Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Swarnajayanti Commercial Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

.....RESPONOENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents to lay the box drain along with the Nagaram^{main road} to the Cherlapally Cheruvu but not through the^petitioner colony^{in the interests of} justice.

¶16

|.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court^may be^{pleased to stay} all further proceedings including the work to be started by^{the respondentsin the} petitioner colony in laying box drain in the interests of^justice.

¶18

I t

¶19

,:.,!;:i.. 'l.r::r1. )/ Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.SURESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR lRRl AND COtltM AREA DEVELOPMENT

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI V.NARSIMHA GOUD The Court made the following ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.l11O2 of2o25

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present writ petition is hled seeking a direction to the respondents to lay the closed/box drain along with the nagaram main road to the Cherlapally Cheruvu/ tank instead of proposing to lay the drain from the petitioner's colony and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶25

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record

¶26

It is stated that the petitioner is a welfare society in the name and style of "BMR Enclave Residents Welfare Association", registered vide Regn.No.747 /2013 and the said society consists of 50 members and about 30 houses were constructed and 2O plots are vacant. It^is furlher stated that the society is having all infrastructure such as drainage and roads to meet the nccds of the colony people. It is further stated that on the other side of the main road of Nagaram, there is a Dumping yard known as "Ramky Dumping^yard" and the drain water emanated from the said dump yard used to flo'*' from the upstream and enter into the petitioner's colony. It is also stated that in the rainy season, the drain water is overflowing from the Ramky Dumping yard and entering into the colony and thereby causing health hazards to the inhabitants of the locality. The case of the

¶27

¶28

¶29

petitioner is that the responclent No.1 is planning ._o construct a Box Drain from Komatikunta Cherul_u via Dal,arakunta Cheruvu to Chcrlapally Cheruvu, Nagaram and the proposed plain goes through 22 colonies within the vicinity, It is slaLed that re l.rre sen tatior_rs have been made by the residents of the colony to the respondent No.3 requesting for construction of box drain on the sides of Nagaram main road by changing alignment of the existing proposal to arrest inconveniencc to human habitation. Thc grievance ol.the petitioner is that even though several represenLations da tccl 26 .O4.2024 , 06.O5.2024 arrcl lO.OS.2024 hat,e been submittecl to the respondents. till date, no acLion has been taken Hence, the preser t rvrit petition

¶30

Learned counscl lor the petitioner has vehenrentll, contended Lhat il there rs any breakage of the box cirain proposed to be constructed by respondent No.1 through the reside. rtial localitrcs, it would cause great hardship ancr pollution. Learned counsel further stated that a Dump5.21d is also situated near to the localities and if the water flowing from the upward stream during tht, rainy season is contaminated i.l.i Lh drain water, it would cause healrh hazardous to the inhabitants of [he locality.

¶31

Mr. V. Narsimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing lor respondent No.3 has contended that to prevent the c tntamination of water flowing from upward stream tanks to downwarrl stream tanks,

¶32

.:l*iexli?'<E-t, ,^{iF *}

I l

t t

.:.'^-./

they have undertaken^{the work to construct underground drainage} system and there is no^{possibiiityof breakage of drain or mixing drain} water with rain water. The^{respondents after technicalsurvey, having} examined the feasibility^{of arrest of the drainwater/leakageof drain} water, which would cause^{health hazard. To prevent the same in the} large public interest, the^{respondents have undertakenunderground} drainage system,^{the petitioner with an intentionto obstruct the said} work and to cause hurdles^{is making variousrepresentationsand the} present writ petition filed^{is misconceivedand prayedfor dismissal ol} the same.

¶38

6, In view of the above submissions^{as this Courtis not technically} expertised to suggest or^{direct the method to be adopted by the} respondents-Municipat^{Corporationeither for layingof box drain} system or underground^{drainage system or to changethe alignment} and as these issues^{are requiredto be examined by the Municipal} Corporation as^per the^{advice of the technical experts, this Court} deems it appropriate to^{direct the responden ts toexamine the} representations dated^{26.04-2024, 06.O5.2024 andlO 05 '2024} submitted by the^{petitioner,if the proposalfor laying of the box drain} is not hnalised, and the^{decisionthereon shall be communicatedto} the petitioner.

¶39

With the above observations,^{this Writ Petition is disposed of'}

FffiT

\ .l**ar
..
,::*-r l.i'

¶44

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications penrlir-rg if any, shall

¶45

stand closed. No costs.

Sd/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

sECfloN oFFtcER

¶52

The Principal Secretary, (lrrigation Dept), Secretariat, S;aifabad, State of

¶53

I elangana at Hyderabad.

¶54

The District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 3 Il9-9qlrlssioner, Hyderabad Muniiipat Devetopmen Authority,

¶55

_^{:,warnajayanti Commercial Complex, Ameerpet,} HVder rbad.

¶56

Two CCs to Gp FOR tRRt AND COMM AREA DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad. IOUTi^-

¶57

Two ccs to GP FoR REVENU-e, uign court ro'r tre Stirte of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶58

Q. 9nu^{CC to SRt P.SURESH, Advocate} [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRt V.NARSTMHA GOUD, Advocaie (OpU(r)

B. Two CD Copres

PVL

I ; I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110412025

..--.1.].1,.'. ,€.<br>10 sE) 2025
1,i

ORDER

WP.No.11102 ot 2025

,Q
.1
/
2,/

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

Bmr Enclave Residents Welfare Assn v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bmr Enclave Residents Welfare Assn 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Vishwadeep Vs Shri Manoj Ahuja, IAS

Khasim Sab Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Bheema Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Perli Yebu Vs The State of Telangana

Gangireddy Shankar Reddy Vs Dr. Harish

D. Ramulu Vs a. Krishna Prasad, Ces