Allowed

R.Baig, v. The Managing Director

Telangana HC16 Aug 2004WP/14171/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a licensee seeking to continue possession of a site pending appellate proceedings, filed a writ petition for a direction to respondents not to obstruct access by erecting fencing. The Court directed respondents not to obstruct access while the appellate order remained in force.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to cause any obstruction for access to the suit schedule premises so long as the order of the appellate Court is in force.

R.Baig, Vs The Managing Director — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 14171 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

R.Baig, S/o Late Sardar Baig, R/o Vijayapuri South, Nagarjunasagar, Guntur District

..... PETITIONER

AND

4 The Divisional Manager, A.P.Travel & Tourisam Development Corporation, Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Guntur District

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, not to cause any obstructions in entering into the site (in which the petitioner is in possession) in an extent of 40" X 25" i.e. 1,000 Sq.Feet in the premises of Launch Station, Vijayapuri South, Nagarjunasagar, Guntur District, by declaring the action of the respondents in making obstructions to the petitioner in entering into the above said site is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.S.N.SARMA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. N.Krishna Rao

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

The petitioner is claiming that he is a licensee of a site of the Irrigation Department. A suit for cancellation of allotment was filed by the respondent-corporation covered by O.S.No.75 of 1998, and it was decreed in favour of the respondent on 16.12.2003. Against the said decree, the petitioner filed A.S.No.2 of 2004 and also filed I.A.No.44 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala and the petitioner was granted interim stay of the decree on 21.01.2004.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the order granted by the appellate Court, he is continuing in possession of the premises and the respondent instead of approaching the Court for vacation of the stay, is causing obstruction for his business by way of erecting a fencing in front of the shop.

¶21

The first respondent being a corporation is not expected to act like a private individual and it has to respect the order of the Court so long as it is in force. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to cause any obstruction for access to the suit schedule premises so long as the order of the appellate Court are in force.

¶22

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

G.YETHIRAJULU,J

¶24

Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow

16-08-2004

B/o KLP

1 The Managing Director, A.P.Travel and Tourism Corporation Ltd. Hyderabad 2 The Executive Engineer, Dam Maintainance Division, Hill Colony, Nagarjunasagar, Guntur District 3 The Assistant Engineer, Buildings and Roads Section, Vijayapuri South, Nagarjunasagar, Guntur District 4 The Divisional Manager, A.P.Travel & Tourisam Development Corporation, Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Guntur District

¶29

5 2CD copies

R.Baig, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Baig, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Md. Kaleem, Vs The Registering Authority

Prayaga Satya Venkata Triyambaka Janaki Ramaiah, Vs Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam

Smt.B.Mangayamma, Vs Apsrtc rep., by its Vice Chairman and Managing

Y.Ravinder Raju, Vs The Chairman

Raja Vinay Mohan Lal BhatNager Vs Commissioner for Endowments

Kuna Jagadiswara Rao S/o Karuvulu Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc.