Telangana High Court
Thumu Sreekanth vs The State Of Telangana on 13 March, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.3756 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent in acting on the representation of the petitioners dt.20.01.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Section 433 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and also Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri L.Ravinder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and perused the record.
3. Petitioners contend that the unofficial respondent, who is the owner of the house bearing Door Nos.12-1-56 and 12-1-57 situated at Moosapet, Kukatpally, had taken up the demolition work without obtaining any permission or sanction from the 3rd respondent authority; and that on account of the demolition activity undertaken by the unofficial respondent, the same is posing a threat to the lives of the children, who are presently studying in the adjacent property, viz., KidZee Play School and also the neighbours including that of the petitioners.
2
4. Petitioners further contend that the aforesaid demolition activity undertaken by the unofficial respondent is without following any precautions, as required to be maintained while undertaking demolition and as such, the petitioners had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a representation dt.20.01.2024 bringing to the notice of the 3rd respondent the aforesaid acts resorted to by the 4th respondent and in spite of the same, no action is taken.
5. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is filed. By the counter, the respondents-authorities stated as under:
"The allegation that the 4th respondent is demolishing the said house is not correct. As on date there is no such activity is going on at the site. If the 4th respondent is taking any steps contrary to law, the answering respondents will take action in accordance with law. The answering respondent will enforce the provisions of GHMC Act strictly. The petitioner has filed this writ petition only on an apprehension."
6. Having regard to the categorical assertion made by respondent Nos.2 and 3 by their counter-affidavit that no demolition of the house bearing Door Nos.12-1-56 and 12-1-57 is taken up by the unofficial respondent as of today and that the present writ petition is filed only on mere apprehension, this Court is of the view that the respondents- authorities should be directed to take action, in the event of the unofficial 3 respondent undertakes any demolition work without obtaining any permission from the respondents-authorities.
7. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:13.03.2024 GJ