M/s. Manikanta Constructions, kurnool v. Commissioner
Case at a glance
- Bench
- L NARASIMHA REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 s. 437
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool District, 1st Respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and violative Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very spirit and object of section 437 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. issued by Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.SREEDHAR The Court at the stage of admission made the following
ORDER:
The petitioner submitted an application on 22.11.2004 to the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, the first respondent, for according permission, to undertake construction over its site. On 02.12.2004, the Corporation is said to have informed that the petitioner shall have to hand over certain area, since the site over which the construction is proposed, is covered by the master plan. The grievance of the petitioner is that though several representations have been made, commencing from 06.12.2004, expressing its willingness to hand over the site, no orders have been passed on the application so far, and it seeks appropriate directions in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a deemed permission had accrued to the petitioner and, in fact, it has collected the material to undertake construction. The learned standing counsel for the first respondent, on instructions, submits that the Corporation is examining the matter with reference to the master plan and relevant provisions of law, and appropriate orders would be passed within a very short time. The application submitted by the petitioner is pending since 22.11.2004. Even according to the petitioner, the respondents have addressed a letter, dated
Operative part
02.12.2004, indicating that the petitioner is liable to surrender certain portion of the land. The petitioner claims to have expressed its willingness to surrender the said area. The nature of the further steps taken by the respondents is not evident. The application of the petitioner cannot be kept pending indefinitely. As a matter of fact, a deemed permission would accrue to the petitioner, if the application remains unattended to. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application, dated 22.11.2004, submitted by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner shall not undertake any construction till then. It is, however, made clear that in case the first respondent fails to pass orders, as indicated above, it shall be open to the petitioner to proceed with the work in accordance with the relevant byelaws and duly observing the set backs and F.S.I. earmarked for the area concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------
28.04.2005 Note: Issue CC in three days. (BO) To 1 Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, Kurnool District, rep.by its Commissioner. 2 The Special officer, Kurnool, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA}
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 — s. 437.
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.