High Court for State of TelanganaPIL/266/2014disposed of as not pressed

Sri.T.Nageswar Rao, v. State Of Telangana,

2016-06-20Dilip B. Bhosale,P Naveen Rao3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 266 of 2014 Date: 20.06.2016 Between:

Sri T. Nageswar Rao & others.

... Petitioners And State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & others.

... Respondents

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 266 of 2014 PC: (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners, in the instant petition, seek the following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more appropriately a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not removing the antennas as illegal and arbitrary and violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove the five Heavy Weight Pole Mounted Antennas on the roof top of the 5th respondent residential house at Plot No.72, Survey No.74/12, Three Moorthy Co-operative Housing Society, East Maredpally, Secunderabad and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice."

Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the agreement between the 5th respondent and the service providers is expiring in December, 2016. Having confronted with this, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that on expiry of the agreement period, respondent No.5 will not renew the agreement, since it is not in his interest and in the interest of his building, which has developed cracks. His statement is recorded and accepted. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the writ petition.

Writ petition is disposed of as not pressed. This, however, shall not preclude the petitioners and/or respondent No.5 to take appropriate remedy, if the circumstances so demand.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of. _______________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ ______________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 20.06.2016 ES