G.V.Srirama Raju v. The State of Telangana

Kalagara Srinivas Rao, S/o.K.Basavaiah Chowdary Age 56 years, occ. President, Belleza Apartments Owners Welfare Association, Flat NO.2800 Tower-ll-B, Lodha Belleza Apartments, KPHB Hyderabud ...*=rr.*DENTS 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 issue any order or direction writ or writs more particularly on in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 to 4 in not taking action on the complaint dt.9.01.2025 to direct the Respondent no.5 to provide amenities to petitioner to petitioner flat bearing No.1A500 Belleza Apartments, KPHB Hyderabad, by implementing the orders passed in 1.A.No.923/2022, in SOP.No.3l2022, on the file of Hon'ble lll Addl. District Judge, Kukatpally at Medchal Malkajgiri District, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent NO.2 to 4 to take action against the Respondent NO.5 who is causing inconvenience to petitioner by not restoring the amenities to petitioner even after the orders passed I I in 1.A.No.923/2022, in SOP.No.312022, on the fite of Honbte lI Addt. District Judge, Kukatpally at Medchal lValkajgiri District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Respondent No.5 to restore the amenities such as Water, using of Lift and all other amenities which the Respondent No.5 and other owners of the Flats are utilizing in their flats being the owner of flat No. 14500, sTH Floor, and 3100 in 31 st Floor, Lodha Belleza KPHB Hyderabad forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.Y.L.N.CHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: cP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER I I I .THE IION''BLIi SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSH]\{AN WRI'I PEI'ITION No. 4066 of 2025 ORDTiII: Heard learned counsel lbr petitioner and Sri Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Perusal of the record would reveal that petitioner along witlr his son and wife have Illcd SOI' r,lde S.O.P.No.3 of 2022 against 5 respondent, betirre thc lear-ned III Additional District and Sessions .ludge, Kukatpally, Mcdchal-Malkajgiri District. The leamed Ill Additional District and Sessions Judge has passed crl interim injunction on 17.06.2022 and extended the same titl date. During pendcncy of tlie said SOP and subsistence of the said ad interim injunction order, 5'h respondent has disconnectecl rvater supply to petitioner's apartment. Therefore, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 09.01.2025 to 3'd rcsponderi - Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, Kukatpally Circle-23, Moosapet, Hyderabad, with a \ 2 KL, J l{.]'}.No.4066 ot2O25 request to take action against 5'l'respondent. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, 3'd respondent did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of 3'd respondent. petitioner has filed the present Writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing fbr respondent Nos.2 to 4. on instructions, would submit that there are disputes between petitioner and 5'h respondent with regard to the arnenities provided by Belleza Aparlments Orvners Welfare Association, to which, 5'h respondent is the President and 3''l respondcnt cannot consider the same.

As rightlr, contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing tbr r-espondent Nos.2 to 4 that 3"j respondent cannot considcr the internal disputes betrveen petitirtncr and 5'r'respondent. Adrnittedty, the said SOP is pending. If thcre is any violation ol'ad interim injunction order dated 17.06.2022 passed by thc learned tII Additional District.ludge and Sessions Judgc. Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, I petitioner has to take steps against 5'h respondent by way of 3 KL, J W.P.No.4066 of 2025 filing an appropriate application before the said Court alleging violation of the said order' Instead of doing so' he has submitted a representation dated 09'01'2025 to 3'd respondent with a request to take action against 5ft respondent and filed the present Writ Petition aggrieved by non-consideration of the same. 5 It is to be noted that 3'd respondent will only consider three aspects i.e., l) misrepresentation/suppression of facts; 2) false statement, if any, made by applicant' and 3) construction in deviation to the building permit order' In the present case, there are disputes between petitioner and 5th respondent with regard to providing basic amenities' The same will not come within the purview of 3'd respondent' Therefore, petitioner cannot submit representation to 3'd respondent and file the present Writ Petition alleging non- consideration of the same. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less relief sought in the present Writ Petition. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. I I 4 KL, J w P No.4066 ot2025 .a\