P.Usha v. The Commissioner

Factual and Procedural Background

P.Usha filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to prevent the second respondent from demolishing her residential property for laying a storm-water drain except in accordance with due process of law. [1][2]

The petition was based on the apprehension that the property was proposed to be demolished for construction of the storm-water drain. [3]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the second respondent should be prohibited from demolishing the petitioner's residential property for construction of a storm-water drain except by due process of law. [1][2]
2. Whether the petitioner's apprehension of proposed demolition was substantiated. [3][4]

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Position

• The petitioner apprehended that her residential property would be demolished for construction of a storm-water drain and sought protective relief. [2][3]

Respondents' Position

• The respondents' learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, categorically stated that there was no such proposal as apprehended by the petitioner. [4]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court heard both sides and considered the petitioner's apprehension that the property would be demolished for construction of a storm-water drain. [5][3]

The respondents' Standing Counsel made a categorical statement, on instructions, that no such demolition proposal existed. [4]

By recording that statement, the Court found the basis for the apprehended demolition had been addressed and disposed of the writ petition. [6]

Holding and Implications

WRIT PETITION DISPOSED OF. The Court recorded the respondents' statement that there was no proposal to demolish the petitioner's property. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. [6][7]

The decision directly concludes the proceedings on the stated apprehension; the opinion does not establish any new precedent.