A2 to A5 v. Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
lor petilioner', thc Writ Petition is dismissed lor
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
3. .lvlr. Ch.Achuta Srinivas, S/o.Late Latcha Rao, Aged 43 years, Occ Advocate, Rlo.12-22-19, Aryapuram, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
4. Smt.G.Vidyavathi, W/o.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, aged 50 years, Occ Business, Rl/o.Plot No.11'12, M.L.As Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent herein in letter No. BPS/'I0462/C-101C21200812014, dated 1811112014 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and the provisions of AP Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership Act, 1987) and spirit of the decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2009 (4) ALD 803 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.793412012 arising out of SLP (V) No.3347112011 Eshe Ekta Apartments Co- Operative Housing Ltd., and other Vs Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and others With a consequentral direction against the Respondents 1 and 2 herein to remove the unauthorized constructions raised by the 3rd and 4th Respondents on the terrace of 7th floor located in Ashoka Lake View Apartments, in premises bearing No. 6-3-1 192lAl2 to 5/801, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad. I.A.NO:1 OF 2014 (WPMP. NO: 49865 OF 20141 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 grant interim suspension of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent herein in letter No.BPS/1O4621C-1OlCZ2008l 2014, dated B-1 1-2O11 and pending disposal of the above writ petition. l.A.NO:1 OF 201S(l/r/VMP. NO: '129 OF 2015) Betwee n Ch.Achuta Srinivas, S/o.Late Latcha Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ; Advocate, permanent, Rlo.12-22-19, Aryapuram, Rajahmundry, East Godavan District, presently Rl/o Flat No.80'l , Ashoka Lake View Residency, Kundanbagh, Hyderabad. ...-PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.3 AND 1 Ashoka Lake View Residency Owners, Welfare Association, Regd. No. 36412004, Represented by its Manager and Authorized Signatory Mrs. Dr. Meera Padhye, W/o. Deepak B. Padhye, Aged 51 years, Occ Medical Practitroner, Office at Ashoka Lake View, bearing No. 6-3-1 192/42 to A5, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 0'16. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad. Smt.G.Vidyavathi, W/o.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, aged 50 years, Occ Business, Rt/o.Plot No.11't2, M.L.As Colony, Road No.12,-Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2 3 4 .....RESPONDENTS
/PETITTONERyRESpONDENTS Nos.1 & 2 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 pass an order to vacale the interim orders granted in W.P.lr/.P.No. 49865 of 2O14 in W.P.No. 39753 of 2014 dated 26-12-2014. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AGASTYA RAM, rep. FOR SRI M.SREEKANTH, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.3 :
Ms. DIWA RAI SOHNI Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : - The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.39753 of 2O14
ORDER:
Tl.ris s.rit yretition is liled seel<ing lollowing relief "To quash tlre: irnpuqned order passed bA the 1't Respondent hereir ln letter No.BPS/ 10462/C1O/CZ/2OO8/2014 dated l8/ 1 I / 2014, us illegal and arbitrary. "
2. Sri Agilstla Ram, learned coLrnsel representing Sri M. Srikirnth, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, Sri Nl. Arurr l(r-rmar, learned Standing counsel for responclent No.2/CiHMC and Ms. Di,"r.a Rai Sohni, learned counsel for respondent No.3 are present.
3. Learnecl collnsel for petitioner rcpresented that he has no instn rctior-rs to proceed rvith the matter.
Operative part
4. Considt-ring the submission made by learned counsel lor petilioner', thc Writ Petition is dismissed lor non-proseculion. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shall stand closed. //rRUE COPY' SD/. A.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANTaEGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER
Two CCs to GP FOR MPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOpMENT. Hioh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
One CC to SRI IV SREEKANTH. Advocate IOPUCI 3 One CC ro SRt TV ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMiIOPUCI 4. One CC to tr,,4s DIVYA RAt SOHNI, Advocate topubl 5. Two CD Copies To $, SA BSR HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 HE 1 TA Bt [[ J 2u$ ,4 * rilA- .>' *- ORDER WP.No.39753 of 2014 DISMISSING THE W.P FOR NON _ PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS. 9,- (r
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: lor petilioner', thc Writ Petition is dismissed lor
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
AP Apartments Promotion of Construction and Ownership Act, 1987; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
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.