G. Sreedharkant vs The Commissioner

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

a HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 11564 OF 2022 Between:
G. Sreedharkant, S/o G. Balaiah, Aped. 35 Yrs, Fl/o H.No. 6-1-271 , Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Occ. Pvt Service.
...PETITIONER AND
1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.
2. fhe Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation, Khairtabad. Hyderabad.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle. 17, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Khairtabad. Hyderabad.
4. The Assistant City Planner, GHN/C Town Planning Section. Circle No. 17, Greater Hyderabad It4unicipal Corporation, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.
5. K. Karun Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Narsing Rao, Aged. 43 Yrs, R/o Ortr No.
14l8, H.No. 6-1-229, Old CID Quarters. Khairtabad. Hyderabad, Occ. real estate.
6. K. Anasuyamma, W/o Late K.. Achaiah, Aced.73 Yrs, Occ. Household. R/o CID Qrtr No. 14lB and I/.No. 6-1-269, Khairtabad. Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS 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 pass an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of l\i]andamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to demolish the illegal encroachment of the public road abutting the CIB Quarter Nos.14l8, 11/B and 3/A 5thbearing distinct lvlunicipalNos.6-1-269, 6-1-226 and H.No.6-'1-
227, Khairlabad, Hyderabad, admeasuring around 5 to 10 feet.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass I an order directing the 1st, 2ndf 3rd and 4th respondents to consider and enforce the Complaints dated 04-11-2019, 12-12-2020 and 29-01-2022 lodged by the petitioner herein in respect of the illegal encroachment of the public road abutting the CIB Quarter Nos.14l8, 11lB and 3/A bearing distinct l\rlunicipal Nos.6-1-269, 5-1-226 and H.No.6-1-227,Khainabad, Hdyerabad, admeasuring around 5 to 10 feet Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAKESH SANGHI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI NEELI ASHOK KUMAR, SC for GHMC Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.5 & 6: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER .t THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI wp._!to.11E6fut?e2?

ORDER:

This ,,,..ri1 pctirir.rn it:ts It<,c,n filc:d seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondenLs I ro.+

Lo cjcmolish the illegal encroachment ol the pu blic road abllt.ting th., CiB (JLt:trlcr Nos. I4 ' B. I l rB and 3/A 5,h bealng disrricr Munrcipal Nos.6 I 269,6 I

226 and H.No_6 t_227 , Khairtabad, Hydcrabad, admcasuring arou nd 5 l{) I 0 fect.

The rearned Standing counser Sri Neeli Ashok Kumar brought to the notice of this Court that on the earlier occasiorl, tie pedtioner,s iather had filed W.p. No.97g0 of

2OOg seeking the very same rejief and this Court by order dated 07'70'2010 dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner had already filed a suit in O.S. No.451 6 of

2OO8 on the file of the IV Junror Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking similar reltef against ali the respondents therein.

When it was pointed out that thc petitioner couid not h:rvc filcd thc writ petition by suppressing the fact of firing the suit t.'

rc'rrnccr r:ounser for the petitioner therein sought pcrmission the Court.t o u,ithdrar,", lhc said rvrit pctirion adrnrdu tLhne same was allowed by

3. It is again broughr to the notice of this Court that suppressing the fact of dismissal of the W.p. No.978O of

2009, the petitioner has again filed the present writ petition for the very same reliel which is reiief prayed for in )

O.S. No.4516 of 2008 on the filc of thc IV .Junior Civil .Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which is still pending.

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner again sought permission from this Court to withdraw the u,rit petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no explanation as to why the dismissal of the earlier writ petition has not been mentioned in the affidavit filed by him. This is again in clear abuse of process of law as observed by this Court in its order dated 07.1O.2O2O in W.p. No.9780 2009.

5. With the above observations, this r,,,rir perition is clismissed as wiLhdrau.,n subjcct to pavmcnr of a cost o1- Its. l O,OO0/ (Rupccs tcn lhousand onl-r' ) by the pctitioner ro\\,rrrds rhc pr.imc l\.Iinistcr,s Relief Irr_L ncl u ithin a pcriod ol one u,eek from LocLrr .

(:' ll thc pcritioner f:rirs to p.r' rhir sirirl c,sLs,,irtrri, thc stipulateci periocl. thc Rcgistrr. sh:i11 bring thc same to llrc .orice oI rhis Court lor lurther rcclions.

d i Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS WP No.11564 ot 2022 Amount to be paid by the petitioner to the Prime Minister,s Relief Fund as quantified the Court Rs.10,000-00 \

Total Rs. 10,000-00 Sd/. V.SUDHA ASSISTANT (B EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

r't SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Qn" CC to SRt RAKESH SANGH|, Advocare

2. one CC to SRt NEELT ASHOK kurr,ren, sC'tiI OPUCI

3. Two C.D. Cooies. ir_r"r,,lb tOpUCl

One Spare Cbov.

[/RC s i HIGH COURT DATED|041O312022 ra

1HE Y c [ { HAl 202

ORDER WP.No.1 1564 ot 2022 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document