The Hyderabad Metropolitan ... vs Thatipamula Naresh Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4032 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                         AND
          THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


                 WRIT APPEAL No.498 of 2022

JUDGMENT:       (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



        Heard Mr. Y.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for

the appellant and Mr. C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel

for respondents No.1 and 2 (writ petitioners). We have also

heard Mr. Srinivasa Srikanth, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and

Urban Development Department appearing for respondent

No.3; Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned

Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.4, 5, 6,

7 and 8; Mr. N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for respondent No.9; Mr. M.Ramgopal Rao,

learned counsel for respondent No.10; Mr.T.Srikanth

Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for

respondent No.11; and Mr. C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.12.

2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the Hyderabad

Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) as the

appellant assailing the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by

the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9522 of 2022 filed by

respondents No.1 and 2 as the writ petitioners.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has

made it clear that this appeal is confined only to the

imposition of costs and not on the merit of the decision

rendered by the learned Single Judge.

4. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Single

Judge reads as under:

"18. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed by setting aside the impugned order as far observing that the permission granted to the petitioners dated 22.12.2020 is revoked. The writ petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards costs and the officer who has passed the order impugned shall also pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards costs payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad."

5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and

considering the materials on record, including the order

dated 31.03.2022, we are of the view that imposition of the

costs on the appellant was not justified.

6. Consequently, costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty

five thousand only) imposed on the concerned officer of the

appellant is hereby set aside.

7. Writ appeal is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J

03.08.2022 vs