Dasari Rammohan Rao v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6126 OF 2015 ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent erected a cellular mobile tower without obtaining permission and petitioners were made representations from the years 2007 to 2010 and thereafter except issuing notices under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act') dated 24.11.2009, no action is being initiated. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard Sri T.Koteswara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.A.Deepthi, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Learned standing counsel for respondents-Corporation states that necessary action will be initiated if petitioners file fresh representation. In that view of the matter, it is open for the petitioners to file fresh representation and on such filing, the respondents are directed to consider the same and take appropriate action according to law.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed. ____________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 30.03.2015 Rns THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.6126 OF 2015 Date:30.03.2015 Rns