P. THAURYA Vs. CHEGURI PARAMESHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4/GHMC states that due to bona fide inadvertence on his part, he has not communicated the order dated 19.08.2020 passed in the present proceedings to the respondents No.3 and 4/GHMC, for them to make compliances. He states that if granted four weeks time, the GHMC shall consider and decide on the reply dated 18.06.2020 submitted by the appellant/respondent No.5 to the notice issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act' ).

(2.) At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4/GHMC informs the court that the appellant/respondent No.5 has failed to reveal that he has already instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and the GHMC, praying inter alia for staying the notice issued under Section 452 of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.5 admits filing of the suit by his client and states that initially, the learned civil court had granted a status quo order in favour of the appellant/respondent No.5, which was subsequently discontinued after the order came to be passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9964 of 2020. He states that the appellant shall take steps to withdraw the said suit within one week.