Telangana High Court
Julakanti Abhishek Goud vs The State Of Telangana on 21 June, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.15643 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.1, Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2. Having regard to the manner of disposal and the lis involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondents-authorities, having passed a Speaking Order, dt.04.04.2024 with regard to the unauthorized and illegal construction made by the 6th respondent, are not taking any steps for 2 enforcing the said speaking order. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5 submits that the respondents-authorities taking note of the complaint received from the petitioner, dt.06.03.2024, have initially issued notice under Section 461 of the GHMC Act, 1955, thereafter issued a show-cause notice, dt.28.03.2024, and passed a Speaking Order, dt.04.04.2024, holding the construction made by the unofficial respondent to be an unauthorized and illegal construction and directed him to remove the same.
5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that upon the respondents-authorities passing the aforesaid Speaking Order, the unofficial respondent had approached the Court of Civil jurisdiction and filed a suit vide O.S.No.362 of 2024 and obtained an order of status quo on 02.05.2024 in IA.No.645 of 2024 filed in the said suit.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the respondents-authorities are taking steps to file a counter in 3 the said IA as well as written statement in the suit instituted by the unofficial respondent to get the order of status quo vacated, since the unofficial respondent while filing the aforesaid suit had suppressed the fact of respondents-authorities passing a Speaking Order, dt.04.04.2024.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that on the Court of Civil jurisdiction vacating the order of status quo, the authorities would take steps for enforcing the aforesaid Speaking Order passed by the authorities.
8. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
9. Having regard to the submissions made as above, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents- authorities are to be directed to take steps to get the order of status quo vacated by bringing all the relevant facts to the notice of the concerned Court including the judgment of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad v/s. 4 Philomena Education Foundation 1, as well as the High Court's Circular dt.20.02.2017 in ROC.No.7/ Reg.Judl/2017, which was yet again reiterated in Circular dt.08.11.2023 in ROC.No.14/Reg.Judl/2023. Further, the petitioner can also seek impleadment in the aforesaid suit and bring to the notice of the concerned Court all the relevant facts.
10. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 21st June, 2024.
gra 1 2008 (2) ALD 1