J Madan Mohan Reddy vs The Municipal Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Party Details
- J Madan Mohan Reddy
- The Municipal Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
- The Assistant City Planner
Case Summary
J Madan Mohan Reddy filed Case No. WP 3717/2022 in the High Court for State of Telangana on 24 Jan 2022 against The Municipal Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and The Assistant City Planner. The case has had one hearing so far. The case was disposed of on 15 Mar 2022. 4 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (1)
- 15MAR 2022Next Hearing
Judge: N/A
Orders (4)
- 15MAR 2022judgementView Order ↗
Order No: 3
- 15MAR 2022judgementView Order ↗
Order No: 1
- 22FEB 2022orderView Order ↗
Order No: 2
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
H'GH couRr '"^i l1'":$l'^3: ]:::-"^-^ (sPecif, 'driginal Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY _OF\AARCH '"H[o rHousAND AND TWENTY TWo PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO:3717 OF 2022 Between: 3S?B[lXSlS[["$:Y'f '3 -'fY Jj i'8:Pl]1'l,5%TI' $3'?1'31'"X"3i'{3Xi3' ei*atpura Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND 1.
The Municipal Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Lower Tank Bund Road Tank Bund Road' Adarsh Nagar''Hyderabad' Telangana - 500 063 2.
The Assistant city Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation AmberPet Circle - 16, HYderabad' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article ZZA of ne Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit,orderordirection'onemoreparticularlyin thenatureofWritl\/andamus.a)DeclaringtheactionoftheRespondentNo.2in issuingshowcausenoticebearingno,Sl2-2lACPITPS/c.16lGHMcl2022 dated 211o1t2o22 as bad, arbitrary, illegal, violative of Principles of natural Justice and violative of Article 14, 21 and 3004 of constitution of lndia and also contrarytoHMCAct'1955.b)Consequentlysetasidetheshowcausenotice bearing no 512 - 2lACPl TPS/ C - 16/ GHMCI 2022 daled 2110112022' 2110112022. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the Respondents herein not to take any coercive steps againSt the Petitioner including demorishing of the existing structures i.e., toirets undertaken by the Petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R.
ANURAG counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: sRr PASHAM KRTSHNA REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER \ HON'BLE SMT.
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No.3717 of 2022 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.2 in .issuing a show cause notice bearing No.512-2IACP/TPS/C- 16lGHl\AC12022 daled 21. daled 21.01.2022 under Section 452(2) o'f Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, wherein it is observed that earlier, a notice was issued to petitioner for removal of unauthorized extension of toilets on terrace floor and directed to stop the works and remove the unauthorized construction immediately and it is stated that as the petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice, further action will be taken as per Section 636/Section 596/Section 461(4)1461-A of the said Act.
2.
Heeird learned counsel for the petitioner N/r.
R.
Anurag and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.
Pasham Krishna Reddy.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it is stated in the notice that the respondents have issued earlier notice, the petitioner has never received the said notice' He submits that the petitioner is not making any unauthorized construction' but he is renovating the toilets in the existing structure.
I i LK, J W.P.No.3717 of 2022 4.
Respondents have filed counter stating that when the respondents have issued earlier notice, the petitioner has submiited his explanation stating that he is only doing repair work of bathroom and the officials of respondents have inspected the premises and noticed that there is no new construction, except repairs to the leakages of bathroom.
5.
Learned Standing Counsel for respondents also submits that after inspection, the officials of respondents have noticed that there is no new construction and the petitioner is only making repairs to the bathroom.
6.
Recording the submission of learned Standing Counsel, the Writ Petition is closed.
No order as to costs.
7.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
2 SD/-I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' 6D SECTION OFFICER To, 1.
One CC to Sri R.
Anurag Advocate [OPUC] 2.
One CC to Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, SC for GHMC IOPUC] 3.
Two CD Copies 4.
Copies 4.
One Spare Copy Sm XP \ HIGH COURT DATED:1510312022 ORDER WP.No.3717 ot 2022 CLOSING THE WP, wtTHouT cosTs, 6 0 \", ffi''a-"- \.)\ \i 1 I ri;y iiit ;) \{" t> 4 \q-grz