Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

G Abraham Sudhakar And Another vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

High Court Of Telangana|12 August, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 22864 OF 2014 Date of Judgment: 12.8.2014 Between:
G. Abraham Sudhakar and another And …Petitioners The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. No. 22864 of 2014 ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
According to the petitioner, he was given a notice dated 26.7.2014 requiring him to show-cause for the violations pointed out in the said notice with respect to his building and constructions thereon. The aforesaid notice was issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 read with Sections 42 (1) and 43 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, 1975. It is stated that the petitioner has already submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice vide his reply dated 30.7.2014. The present writ petition is, however, filed alleging that even without considering his reply, the Municipal Corporation was taking steps to demolish the building construction made by the petitioner.
Learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation states that the petitioner’s reply was under consideration of the respondents 2 and 3 and therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner has any cause of action to file the present writ petition alleging demolition.
Even under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 it is incumbent upon the Municipal Corporation to consider reply to show-cause notice and pass appropriate orders thereon and according to the petitioner himself, he has filed his reply on 30.7.2014 and therefore, the respondents are bound to consider the same and then pass appropriate orders either under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 or under any other provisions of law for regularization of the objectionable construction, if they do not warrant any demolition.
The writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 12.8.2014 KR
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

G Abraham Sudhakar And Another vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
12 August, 2014
Judges
  • Vilas V Afzulpurkar