ATC Telecom lnfrastructure Private Limited,..' (formerly known as v. Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretarv ltilunicipal - Affi i-. ;i;"iion lno"0 rodn'oSreroiment Depa rtment, secreta riat H yd e ra bad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit…
Judgment
-oy itt Manager- Legal Sri A.R Subba Rao ...PETITIONER AND Hyderabad
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporat'ron, Rep by its Commissioner
fhe ZonalOffice, GHMC, Charminar Zone, Hyderabad Rep by its Zonal Commissioner
The Circle Office, GHMC, Chandrayangutta Circle' Circle- 8' Charminar Zone' - Hyderabad Rep.by its Deputy Commissioner
The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretarv ltilunicipal - Affi i-. ;i;"iion lno"0 rodn'oSreroiment Depa rtment, secreta riat H yd e ra bad ...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 issue appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of aWritofMandamusdeclaringtheactionoftherespondentsininterferingwiththe erectionoftheToweroverthebuildingbearingH-No.18-7-466/2/8/86/3,Sy.No. 264, situated at Ambika Nagar, Uppuguda, Gowlipura Locality' Hyderabad while the permission granted by the respondents for installation of cellular tower through their proceedings No' 225244nPStC7ICHRZIGHMC|2O19' dt' 26to6l2l1g is in force/vogue as arbitrary, illegal' contrary to Municipal Act' Government Orders and also the provisions of tndian Tr:legraph Act and violation of the well setUed principles of natural justice. IANO:1OF2 019 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the cin; umstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the responde nts not to interfere with the erection of the Tower over the building bearing H.r,ro.18-7-466t2tBt}6t3, sy. No.264, situat.d at Ambika Nagar, Uppuguda, Gowtipu.a Locality, Hyderabad pending disposal c,f the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ETOORU POORNACHANDER RAO Counsel for the Res, pondents: Gp FOR MAUD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28393 of 2O19 ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner addressed a letter dated L4.O7.2025 to the Registry stating that the petitioner instructed her to withdraw the writ petition and accordingly, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition'
Operative part
2. Permission is accorded. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' There shall be no order as to costs. SD/.A. PRATHIMA UTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI GUDIPATI SRIDEVI' Advocate' [OPUC] One CC to SRI ETOORU POORNACHANDER RAO' Advocate lOPUCl 1 2 3 Two CD CoPies. BSK GJP s \ HIGH COURIT DATED:171Qt712025 i I I i I : I i i ORDER WP.No.28393 of 2019 1 .1 l: 0 7 [[i a25 a; . n . ., .. ';-. :., ,,;;:,' '-:..- -'a' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS C
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
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.