Disposed

M. Bharath Bhushan, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Telangana HC7 Jun 2005WP/10989/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Writ Petition challenged the inaction of APSRTC officials regarding the extension of a fancy shop lease. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file a representation under a specific circular for consideration on merits, without granting any stay.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents in terms of Circular No.83/2003 for consideration on merits on merits.

M. Bharath Bhushan, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 10989 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Bharath Bhushan, S/o. Saibaba, R/o. Narketpally (V& M) Nalgonda District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Narketpally, Nalgonda District.

¶12

2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narketpally, Nalgonda 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 may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dt. 4-3-2004 for extension of licence period of the petitioner's stall (fancy shop) at APSRTC Bus Station Narkatpally, Nalgonda District as per circular No. 83/2003 OPC(C) dt. 29-102003 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for extension of licence period.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (S.C.FOR APSRTC)

¶17

The Court at the admission stage made the following:

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

The petitioner, who is stated to be an occupant of a stall in the bus station of A.P.S.R.T.C., at Narketpally, Nalgonda District, sought for a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for extension of lease period as per Circular No.83/2003 OPC(C), dated 29.10.2003.

¶20

According to the petitioner, he was granted licence for establishing a fancy shop at the bus station of Narketpally belonging to the respondent-Corporation. As there were certain disputes as to the lease period, the petitioner filed a suit being O.S.No.237 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda and the same is still pending. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-Corporation issued a circular for extending the lease period for a further period of three years subject to certain conditions. Therefore, he sought for a direction to the respondents to consider his case in terms of the said circular.

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing

¶22

Counsel appearing for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents in terms of Circular No.83/2003 OPC(C), dated 29.10.2003. If such a representation is made, the respondents are directed to consider the same on merits. However, it is made clear that the direction given by this Court shall not be construed as any stay or any direction against the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the stall of the respondent-Corporation.

¶23

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

07.06.2005

VGB

1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Narketpally, Nalgonda District. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narketpally, Nalgonda District.

¶28

3 2CD copies.

M. Bharath Bhushan, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Bharath Bhushan, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

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

T.Kondaiah, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation

B.Karuna, Vs Govt., of a.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary

L. Balaram, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

M.V. Ramana Reddy, Vs M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

L.v.S.Narayana E-501680, Typist Vs The Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

L. Bindu, Vs The Government of A.P. Minorities Welfare ( Mandr) Dept.