Sri Khaja Mazharuddin Ahmed Ansari v. Commissioner, Tank Bundk, basheerbagh, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. 7th August, 2008. Note: C.C. tomorrow B/o KM _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy T HE HONOURABL E SRI JUST ICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PET IT ION NO. 10203 OF 2008. 7th August…
Judgment
Cause title
1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bundk, basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The asst. City Planer, Circle No:V, Khairtabad, Hyderbad. 3 The Sub-Registrar, Golconda Office at 6-3-540/1, Farhat Manzil, Punjagutta, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad-82. 4 Dr. Ramana D/o late Khaja Fareeduddin Ahmed Ansari R/o Flat No. 401, 4th Floor, Nimul Khasim Apartments, Red Hills, hyderabad. 5 M/s. Postive Constructions, rep by its Managing Director, Sri B. Srinivas Reddy S/o Appi reddy r/o H. No. 6-2-1/15, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad-4. 6 Sri Qader Hussain S/o Late Gulam Hussain, Nimul Khasim APartmnts, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 7 The A.P. Transco, rep by its managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT (S)
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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the permission granted by the respondent No.1 & 2vide permit No. 111/41 file No. 0692/CCS/TP5/05, in respect to premises bearing house No. 6-2-1, 6-2-1-1, 6-2-2 and 6- 2-1/15, situated at Lakdi-ka-pool , Hyderabad, as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional apart from being contrary to the provisions of HMC Act 1955 and in breach of principles of natural justice and in- turn direct the respondent No:1 & 2 to take appropriate action againts the respondent No. 4 to 6 by demolishing such illegal construction raised, in the interest of justice and equity and pass such other or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANUP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT .KALPANA EKBOT E T he Court made t he following : T HE HONOURABL E SRI JUST ICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PET IT ION NO. 10203 OF 2008
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th Respondent has been settled and therefore, the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. A memo has been filed to that effect.
Permission as sought for is accorded.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. 7th August, 2008. Note: C.C. tomorrow B/o KM _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy T HE HONOURABL E SRI JUST ICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PET IT ION NO. 10203 OF 2008. 7th August , 2008.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.