Muneer T. Khambati v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
against the 2nd respondent, Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction
Provisions considered
- Cantonments Act, 1924 s. 185
Judgment
Operative part
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.13495 OF 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in taking action under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 against the alleged illegal constructions made by the 2nd respondent on Plot No.18, Avanthi Co-operative Housing Society, Balamrai, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. The petitioner states that he made a representation long back on 9-5-2006 bringing to the notice of the 1st respondent the illegal constructions made on the plot in question. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and having regard to the nature of the controversy involved, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made against the 2nd respondent, Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the complaint made by the petitioner dated 9-5-2006 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the 2nd respondent to rebut the allegations made and after making the necessary enquiry as provided under law. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. Dated : 07-07-2006 ______________ G. ROHINI, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: against the 2nd respondent, Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Cantonments Act, 1924 — s. 185.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 07 Jul 2006. The bench was G ROHINI.
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.