Disposed

P. Malleswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Sept 2021WP/6257/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.6257 of 2021, the petitioner, a coconut collection licensee, sought a refund of fees paid for a period when temple operations ceased due to the pandemic. The court directed the 2nd respondent to decide the issue after a hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty granted to approach 2nd respondent for relief; direction to decide the issue after hearing within three months; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

P. Malleswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶3

Writ Petition No.6257 of 2021

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

The petitioner had been granted the license to collect the coconut halves offered by the devotees in the 3^rd respondent-temple for the period from 01.03.2019 to 28.02.2021 for an annual maktha of Rs.3,96,000/- for the first year and an annual maktha of Rs.4,35,600/- for the second year. The petitioner has paid the maktha for the first year and was able to collect the coconut halves for the said year without any interruption.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the consequentional regulations, the 3^rd respondenttemple was effectively closed and the petitioner was unable to collect the coconut halves from 20.03.2020 to 28.2.2021. It is stated that the petitioner had also approached the Executive Officer of the 3^rd respondent-temple on 18.06.2020, for the refund of Rs.1,10,000/which has been paid by the petitioner as part of the second annual maktha. The 3^rd respondent-temple had issued a notice dated 30.07.2020, demanding the remaining license fee of Rs.2,81,880/- for the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2021.

¶7

The petitioner further submits that as the petitioner was not allowed to collect the coconut halves for the above 346 days, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the entire annual maktha that was paid by him for the year 2020-21.

¶8

The 3^rd respondent had filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner, despite the knowledge that the temple has been reopened from June, 2020, had not come forward to collect coconut

¶9

¶10

halves and the same were collected by the temple and kept aside. Later, these coconut halves, collected between 20.03.2020 to 28.02.2021, were auctioned for a sum of Rs.32,500/-. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the licence rights for collecting the coconut halves from 01.03.2021 to 13.03.2021 and from 14.03.2021 to 13.06.2021, were given in favour of a 3^rd party through an auction process.

¶11

The controversy that now remains is whether the petitioner would be entitled to the refund of the annual maktha paid by the petitioner or whether the petitioner would be required to pay the remaining annual maktha amount after deducting a sum of Rs.32,500/- which was the amount obtained by the sale of the coconut halves for the said period.

¶12

Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these issues would be agitated before the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner be given liberty to raise all these issues before the 2^nd respondent, with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the contentions of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the 2^nd respondent for such relief as prayed in this writ petition. Upon such representation being made, the 2^nd respondent shall take a decision, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of the said representation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

¶15

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶16

closed.

¶17

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. 06.09.2021 BSM

¶18

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶20

Writ Petition No.6257 of 2021

¶21

06-09-2021

¶22

BSM

P. Malleswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Malleswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

A.Venkatesh, Vs Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam

A.Venkatesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L.Rajaneesh Vs P. Ramesh Kumar, I.a.S, (Rtd)

Giddaluru Bala Thimmaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Ajay Kumar Vs Sri. Rajsekhar, IAS

M/s Thunugtmtla Chakrapani Gupta and Co, Vs Mannava Subba Rao