Disposed

P.T.Gopala Chari and Sons, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Sept 2021WA/571/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging an interim stay order. While refusing to interfere with the Single Judge's discretionary condition, the Court granted the appellant an extension to deposit the demanded amount concerning a lease dispute over a petrol pump site.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was disposed of. The appellant was permitted to deposit the demanded amount within two months from the expiry of the six-week period fixed by the learned Single Judge.

P.T.Gopala Chari and Sons, Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No. 571 of 2021

¶4

(Taken up through video conferencing)

¶5

P.T. Gopala Chari and Sons, rep. by its Managing Partner, P.T.Jagannathan, aged about 60 years, occ:Business, MSR Colony, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District.

¶6

…. Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Water Resources (CE’s Establishment) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others …. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Ms. S. Siva Kumari Government Pleader

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

Dt.15.09.2021

¶12

(Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

¶13

Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Siva Kumari, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for the respondents.

¶14

The appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.18404 of 2021 assailing G.O.Rt.No.286 dated 09.08.2021 issued by the Secretary to Government, Water Resources (CE’s Establishment) Department, fixing the lease amount of the land over which the appellant established a petrol pump, for the period from 22.12.2000 to 30.09.2021. The said order was issued in compliance of the order dated 17.04.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2384 of 2008. Along with the

¶15

¶16

writ petition, the appellant also filed an application being I.A.No.1 of 2021 for stay of the aforesaid order dated 09.08.2021.

¶17

On 27.08.2021, the learned single Judge had passed the following order in I.A.No.1 of 2021, which is impugned in this writ appeal:

¶18

“In the circumstances, in view of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2384 of 2008, dated 17.04.2008, there shall be interim stay of operation of the G.O.Rt.No.286 dated 09.08.2021 subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the demanded amount within six (6) weeks from now and further subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month towards rent for use and occupation of the site in question with effect from 01.10.2021 on or before 10^th of every month until further orders.”

¶19

Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the direction to deposit 25% of the demanded amount within a period of six weeks is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the appellant was required to deposit the lease amount fixed retrospectively. He also submits that as the learned single Judge had imposed an onerous condition, this Court may suitably modify the order of the learned single Judge by reducing the amount of deposit to be made by the appellant and by allowing the appellant to deposit the demanded amount by way of furnishing fixed deposit receipts.

¶20

Ms. S. Siva Kumari, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for the respondents, submits that when the learned single Judge had exercised discretion in a particular manner, this Court in an appeal arising out of an interlocutory order may not interfere with such a discretion exercised.

¶21

The learned single Judge had directed the appellant to deposit only 1/4^th of the demanded amount.

¶22

¶23

We find substance in the argument of the learned Government Pleader and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.

¶24

However, since the respondents had required the appellant to pay the lease amount fixed from the year 2000 and since twenty years have passed in the meantime, we permit the appellant to deposit the amount as directed by the learned single Judge within a period of two (2) months from expiry of the period of 6 (six) weeks as fixed by the learned single Judge.

¶25

With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

¶26

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶27

CBS

¶28

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶30

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶31

WRIT APPEAL No. 571 of 2021

¶32

15^th September, 2021

¶33

CBS

¶34

P.T.Gopala Chari and Sons, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T.Gopala Chari and Sons, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

East Godavari Private Schools Vs State of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary

Khaja Bee Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

M/s. Vaishnovi Versatile Ventures Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited

The Visakhapatnam Vs v Parvathi

Pola Bhaskar, Vs Shaik Shain Bi

M/s Cadd Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Vs Sri P. Basanth Kumar