A. Naresh'rj!1r.,, st o v. Department, Secretariat. Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In ,the light of the said sirb ln S1 S i1 ,l lt it w rit P,:tition is disposed of directing I 3 respondent to co hS er leBJes, entati I J KL, J \r' Ir \o -1569 oi )l)25 dated 28.01 . [r…
Judgment
Counsel for the Respondent N 2 : AG,P FOR REVE UE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI pUTTA KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the foltowing dnOgn t'l I I I I I THE ON' LES JUSTIC K, LAKSHI\IAN I ORDER: P ETIT I N No.4 of 2025 i H I nsel for etltloners d learned AssiStant G o n1 Reven u e appeanng 2nd rgspon n I S rI ta I(rishna eddy, learnecl Standing Counsel appearing tbr 3''r resl'rortclent.
#2. I).ctit ioncrs , are rC sicling rvithin tlle linr its of' I 3to responderit i.c.. Marrc erial Munic pality. 3"r resporrclent in the meeting
1.2025 has p including th for disrnantlir constmction toried parking IS H:iilfltr area, Petitiopers ve no tion for doing SO There is I proposal to I the sam to the Endowments Department. etitioners e objectin to the same contending that if the s d compl I CX is used b 3'd responderlt, lt can generate rnole income which can be tbr the d eve lo prn cn t or J I ondent. Thc'rel'orc. ltet it Iners ha'e subnritterl representati datled 28.01 .202-s to -) I responclcrrt s'itlr a I I i l_l 2 li L. .J W P lio 4S9 oli2o25 leCltlest l1() t t() ll'lltdo cl' h c co rrip I JX () the Enrlorr,'rlcnts Del.rartrrent. \\ rtlr tlre apprcltension that yithour considering thcir rc1)rcscrrtatiorr. i''l rcspo rrdcnt n-t to tlrc I:ntlot rrrcrrls I) parlIrcnt. pe! itv h i it ion I' ovL'r the ( ()rnplex frlcd the llresent Writ Pe ition J Lgarned Standin Counsel a peErind for 3'd respondent, d on instrUctions. would ubmit that the dilapidated conditlon. erefore, 3 ect water te nk is in S l ndent has l)assed a resolution to disman the same and Sn truct a multistoried parking con'rplei fbr mmercial placc. -l-helc rs a propo al lbr road Municipalitl anci also r al lotntcn t in the abrtve said g in 3'd respondent ot'b slfoOs in the .:omplex to bc corr st r-uc tccl. to Irrtdou ntett t De arlrnent. H ou ever. 1l S J ''' r'csponricnt ri ill consirlcr thc relt rcsentat ir I r dated
13.01 .1015 :uhnrirred b1'petirioners and rakc a decision slrictJl, irr accorclance r,r ith thc proccd u1'e dorvn under the Telangana l\'1 urr icipalitit s Act.20l9 I I
#4. In ,the light of the said sirb ln S1 S i1 ,l lt it w rit P,:tition is disposed of directing I 3 respondent to co hS er leBJes, entati I J KL, J \r' Ir \o -1569 oi )l)25 dated 28.01 . [r, ]"0"1 itted b), peritio [rers and reso lutiort dltcd
06.0l,.202-i ancl take action stlictlv in uccordarrcc t ilh thc procedure laid down urtder tlrc 'l clartgarra Municipalitics .\ct.
#2019. Il 3*i Iespofrdent is not incIi ,[o to accept tlre reclucst made by pet o"",]' it ca1 Rass an o{ er assigning reasons and colTl rrrun lcat of thle said ord to petitioners. It shall complete tlt said xerc sew ithin e ur (4) fiorn the date of receipt of thi order. There shall be no order as to F costs. i I I I I Misce aneous applications, if l y pending, shall stand closed. ll'11 SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' /t =."rrko,,t"^ ,l- ent. Secretariat, State of . Mancherial. QBAN DEVELOPMENT High [ad.lour] toithe State of Telangana at "t Advocate IOPUCI Advocate (OPUC) To I 1 2 3 4 The Principal Siecretany' MA and UD Depa Telangana at H The District Col The Commissi Two CCs to G Court for the S 5. Two CCs to G Hyderabad. [O One CC to SR One CC to SR Two CD Copies b. 7.; d. SA CJP / I .)11 HIGH COURT ) I ,H t-J DATED:1710212025 ORDE R WP.No.4569 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. /1 4z tr4
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 06 Jan 2025.
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.