Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 Dec 2004
- Bench
- R SUBHASH REDDY
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 s. 450
Judgment
Cause title
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2 Sri D. Narender Raj H.No.8-6-965, Balagunj, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the show cause notice dt:8-3-1995 as arbitrary, illegal and opposed to all cannons of justice and fair play and directing the Respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of Plot No.34, House No.7-1-636/34, at Model Colony, G.K.Guda, Erragadda, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. T.S.ANAND Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR. C.R.PRATAP REDDY and Smt. G.Jyothi Kiran, Standing Counsel. Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. C.POORNAIAH The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the show cause notice dated 8-3-1995 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. A reading of the said notice indicates that it is issued pursuant to the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent – D.Narender Raj on 7-3-1995. When the matter has come up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced an agreement arrived between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent on the advice of the elders. Inasmuch as the impugned proceedings, is a show notice, this Court cannot adjudicate with regard to the merits of the same at this stage. In the circumstances, taking note of the subsequent events, I dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file further explanation, if any, to the show cause notice, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with a copy of the agreement said to have been entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and any other relevant material. It is equally open for the 1st respondent to consider the same in accordance with law. Interim stay granted by this court on 20-3-1995 shall remain in force, till appropriate final orders are passed in the matter and communicated to the petitioner. No costs. _________ 9-12-2004 To
The Assistant City Planner, Circle V, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 — s. 450.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 09 Dec 2004. The bench was R SUBHASH REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.