ANEEM RATNAKALYAN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 11, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

(2.) However, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos.12, 13 and 14 as the notices sent to their addresses returned un-served on the ground of 'addressee was out of station ' and 'addressee left ' respectively. Despite service of notice on respondent No.15, none appears on his behalf. According to Section - 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the notices sent to the addresses. Therefore, the aforesaid respondents shall be deemed to have been served.

(3.) This writ petition is filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 4 through their GPA Holder, Mr. S. Madhava Reddy, to declare that the action of respondent No.3 in processing the application for grant of building permission submitted by respondent Nos.7 to 11 and further sanctioning the same vide permit No.1/C3/05541/2021, dated 15.04.2021 in file No.1/C3/01220/2020 in violation of the orders, dated 07.12.2004 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, as illegal. Whereas, I.A. No.2 of 2021 is filed by respondent Nos.5 to 11 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 29.04.2021 passed by this Court in the writ petition.