Telangana Sena v. The Zonal Commissioner

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Public Interest Litigation No. 122 of 2015 DATED:13.07.2015 Between:

Telangana Sena, Gachi Bowli, Hyderabad.

... Petitioner And The Zonal Commissioner, West Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serlingampally, Hyderabad and others.

....Respondents

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Public Interest Litigation No. 122 of 2015 PC: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) None appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the instant P.I.L., the petitioner seeks the following prayer: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus considering this writ as public interest litigation and to declare the action of the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 in sanctioning the permission for construction of the building in Plot No. 2-62/1/P/4, Street No.3, Gachibowli Village, Serlingampally Mandal, R.R.

District by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 wherein the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have encroached and occupied Road of Street No.3 of Gachibowli and carrying on construction on 24 Inches Manjeera Water Pipe Line of the respondent No.3 leading from Gachibowli to Telecom Nagar and Infosys and in not taking any necessary and prompt action in spite of the representation given by the Petitioner society on 27.4.2015 and on 5.5.2015 as illegal and arbitrary and direct the Respondents to stop the construction occupying the Road and encroaching upon the Manjeera Pipeline cancelling the permission for construction in the interest of equity and justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that they have cancelled the building permission issued

in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

In view thereof, nothing further survives in this petition. Recording and accepting the submission made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, we dispose of this P.I.L., as rendered infructuous.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed.

____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ _________________ S.V. BHATT, J 13th July, 2015 Pnb