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
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
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.
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
2008 (2) ALD 1
