CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohammed Akber Khan vs State Of Telangana

Telangana High Court · Decided on 6 October 2022 · Citation: (2022) 10 TEL CK 0001

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.Lakshman, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 37921 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 329 words
1.

Heard Mr. K.V.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents No.2 to 5.

2.

This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of respondents No.2 to 5 in not taking any action against respondents No.6 and 7 from proceeding with the unauthorized construction on the subject property.

3.

A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein had already filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.2707 of 2021, seeking to declare the action of the official respondents therein i.e., respondents No.2 to 5 herein, in not taking action against the unofficial respondents therein i.e., respondents No.6 and 7 herein, who were making illegal construction on the subject property. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 02.08.2021 directing the respondents therein to take further steps in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Respondents therein were also directed to give an opportunity to all the concerned by issuing a notice before taking any further steps. Therefore, there is an order in favour of the petitioner and direction against the unofficial respondents in the aforesaid writ petition. Even then the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition complaining that despite the aforesaid order, the official respondents are not taking up any steps in compliance thereof.

4.

In the light of the aforesaid, if the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to violation and wilful disobedience of the aforesaid order, he has to file contempt proceedings, but he cannot file a fresh writ petition seeking the very same relief.

5.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.