B.Hari Kishan v. Shri Somesh Kumar, I A S

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

Present

Between:

M. Chennakeshavalu, S/o. M. Chinnaiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o. 6-20, Balapur, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

.. Petitioner AND Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & 2 others ..

Respondents The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.25774 of 2015 was that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner against an illegal construction made by the neighbour, no action was taken. This writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 14.08.2015, directing the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (respondent) to consider the complaint, dated 23.07.2015, and pass orders.

2. In the counter affidavit filed, it is averred that the petitioner has mentioned the House No. as 17-1-138/78/A in the entire body of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as in the main portion of the complaint, dated 23.07.2015. Thus, verification was conducted treating the same as house number and having found that no such house number existing in the locality, the reply was given.

3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the prayer portion, the correct house number is mentioned, having regard to the fact that in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as in the body of the complaint, the petitioner mentioned the House No. as 17-1138/78/A, it cannot be said that the respondent has deliberately failed in complying with the directions issued by this Court

warranting initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

4. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedies against the alleged illegal construction made by the owner of the subject premises. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall stand closed.

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 4th December, 2015 KL

Date: 4th December, 2015 KL