Rasika L Bhalerao v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

[ 32ss ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 10474 OF 2014 Between:

Rasika L Bhalerao, W/o Lavraj J Bhalerao, Aged about 27 years, Occ House wife, Fl/o 6-3-1238, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-1 1, Serilingampally. Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-1 1, Serilingampally.

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the sanctioned plan and permission in so far as the representation of the petitioner is concerned dt- 07 -03-2014 regarding his PIot No.13 in Sy.No. 66, 67 and 68 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District. l.A. NO: 1OF 2014(WPMP.

NO: 13153 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue the sanction plan and permission fourth with to the petitioner regarding his Plot No.13 in Sy.No. 66, 67 & 68 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District, pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENI(ATESWARLU SANISETW Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. Y.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.lO474 of 2Ol4 ORDER:

On an earlier occasion i.e., on 19.08.2023, as there was no representation for the petitioner(s) the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption for dismissal.

2. Accordingly, today, though the matter has been listed under the caption for dismissal and when the matter has been taken up for hearing in the afternoon session, there is no representation for the petitioner(s). Hence, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the matter for non - prosecution.

3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall Stand closed.

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// *'

SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY, Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to M/s. Y. PADMAVATHI, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies BN GJP

HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812023 _.-a'

t:

,-f t-) 2[ stP lm l! ,r \'.'\ ..,, \.... ' :-

ORDER

WP.No.10474 ot 2014 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS 1 Lo4