M. Girija Shankar, v. The State Of Telangana,
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA : HYDERABAD MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.27258 of 2024 PROCEEDING SHEET S.
No.
DATE
ORDER
OFFICE NOTE 02.
22.11.2024 CJ & JSR, J I.A.No.2 of 2024 Mr.
V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) for the petitioners/respondent Nos.7 and 8.
Mr. Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Mr. P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 to 14/writ petitioners.
Heard on I.A.No.2 of 2024, an application "for being mentioned".
This Court by an order dated 01.10.2024 had disposed of W.P.No.27258 of 2024 after hearing all the parties including HMDA, which was represented by Mr. Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader. In the writ petition, the following directions were issued:
"8.
In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed with the following directions:
i) The petitioners may supply a copy of the objections, which were furnished by them on 14.07.2014, before Lake Protection Committee within a period of one week from today. It shall be open for the petitioners to furnish the public documents in support of their objections already filed.
ii) As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioners undertake to appear before Lake Protection Committee on 04.10.2024 at 11:00 am.
iii) Thereupon, Lake Protection Committee shall hear the petitioners and shall decide the objections filed by the petitioners by a speaking order.
iv) Thereafter, Lake Protection Committee shall issue a notification notifying the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu.
9.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of appearance of petitioners before Lake Protection Committee.
10.
The learned Special Government Pleader submits that till the aforesaid exercise is carried out, no action shall be taken for demolition of the construction raised by the petitioners. The same is placed on record.
11.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter, as the same has to be adjudicated by the Lake Protection Committee.
12.
With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed."
In I.A.No.2 of 2024, the petitioners namely HMDA have prayed for following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to post W.P.No. 27258 of 2024 as FOR BEING MENTIONED in the interest of justice and fair play."
The aforesaid prayer made in the petition is incomprehensible.
When a query was put to learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid I.A., he submits that Chairman of Lake Protection Committee has changed and therefore, the direction may be given to the Chairman of the Committee.
The aforesaid prayer is thoroughly misconceived as the direction has been issued to the Lake Protection Committee and not to the Chairman of the Committee.
In addition, as the State stated supra, incomprehensible relief has been prayed for in I.A.No.2 of 2024, therefore, even the same sans substance and it is therefore dismissed.
_____________ CJ (AAJ) _____________ JSR, J Note: Issue C.C. today.
(B/o.) KL