Wp v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL,TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.8861 of 2012 Between: Income Tax Department EmployeesSaroornagar Cooperative House BuildingSociety Limited,Rep.by its President. … Petitioner and The State of A.P.,Rep.by its Principal Secretary,Municipal and Urban Development,Secretarit, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAHW.P. No.8861 of 2012 ORDER: Questioning inaction on the part of the 2[nd] respondent inconsidering the representation made on 20.01.2012, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner is a house building society and its case in brief isthat it purchased the land admeasuring about Acs.43.00 in surveyNo.9/1, Saroornagar Village and Panchayat, Hyderabad East, whichwas divided into several housing plots numbering about 320 rangingfrom 400 to 500 square yards each. It is submitted that the land admeasuring about 7152.04 square yardsin the North West of the lay out abutting plot Nos.224, 228, 232, 237,238 and 239 was kept open and was sought to be developed as a parkarea and around which, a compound wall is constructed. It issubmitted that the said part of compound wall is demolished byunknown persons, in connection with which, a criminal case was registered. Thereafter, the petitioner made arepresentation to the authorities on 20.01.2012 for restoration of thedemolished compound wall and other amenities required in the parkwith the funds already sanctioned. As the respondents authorities didnot consider the representation stated to have been made by thepetitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that therespondents authorities did not consider the representation dated20.01.2012 wherein requested the authorities to take up the works withthe sanctioned funds. Hence, the present writ petition. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel would submitthat as it is a specific averment of the petitioner that they made arepresentation to the respondent authorities and the same is pending,therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the same andpass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, having considering the submissionsmade by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of case,directing the respondents to consider the representation dated20.01.2012, stated to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period oftwo months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs. Date: 04.04.2012LSK ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH