SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 61338

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
T.SRINIVASA CHARY S/o. Late T.Venkatesam – Appellant
Versus
GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent
WP 13462/2015



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDEABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.13462 of 2015 DATE : 05.12.2025 Between:

T. Srinivasa Chary & Others …Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & others …Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“To declare the action of the respondent No.1 in not considering the representations dated 12.01.2015 and 27.02.2015 submitted by the petitioners wherein they have requested to take action against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for their illegal running of manufacturing unit of Iron Foundation Bolts at H.No.6- 6-269/70 and H.No.6-6-269/67 on plot Nos.70 and 67 respectively, situated at Arunajyothi Colony, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad in the residential area without obtaining any valid permission and causing disturbance to the neighbourers like the petitioners herein as illegal and arbitrary.”

2. Heard Sri Suhash, learned counsel representing Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri C.H. Jaya Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Brief facts of the issue as averred in writ affidavit are that petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of residential house bearing H.No.6-6-269/69 in plot No.69 and petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of residential house bearing H.No.6-6-269/71 in plot No.71, situated at Arunajyothi Colony, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad (herein after referred to as “the subject property”). He further submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are neighbors to the petitioners are illegally running a manufacturing unit of Iron Foundation Bolts in the subject property and they are running the manufacturing unit all through day and night round the clock without any break in the residential area, due to which there are heavy noises, vibrations and disturbances to the neighbors and huge metal dust has also been entered in the locality which is causing air pollution; and that petitioners gave complaint to the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TSPCB) on 23.12.2014, against the air pollution being caused by respondent Nos.2 and 3; that the officials of TSPCB inspected the subject property and addressed a letter dated 13.02.2015 to respondent No.1/GHMC, wherein it is observed that the subject property is surrounded by thick residential houses/godowns and that there is every chance of noise and nuisance to the surrounding residents and also severe vibrations from the engineering activities and engineering waste is being dumped in the surroundings.

4. It is further averred that petitioners submitted a representation dated 12.01.2015 to respondent No.1 to take action against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for running illegal manufacturing of Iron Foundation Bolts in the subject property and despite receiving the said representation, respondent No.1 did not take any action. The petitioners submitted another representation dated 27.02.2015 to respondent No.1 to take action against respondent Nos.2 and 3, but respondent No.1 did not take any action. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.1 simply denying the averments made in the writ affidavit without stating as to whether any action has been taken by respondent No.1/GHMC on the representation given by the petitioners.

6. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counter affidavit stating that they are not illegally running manufacturing unit of Iron Foundation Bolts in the subject property and the allegations made by the petitioners are frivolous and no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners prior to the TSPCB addressing a letter dated 13.02.2015 to respondent No.1 and it is further averred that the subject property consists of four blocks i.e., A, B, C and D blocks, which were initially under the control of Endowment Department; that initially, no permission w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top