Disposed

M. PRatap v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Jun 2006WP/11254/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging interim order under Section 264 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Court directed 1st respondent to dispose pending revision within four weeks and put petitioners on notice before hearing. Petition disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

1st respondent to dispose pending revision within 4 weeks and put petitioners on notice before further hearing.

M. PRatap Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.11254 of 2006

¶3

DATED: 08.06.2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

M.Pratap and another. .. PETITIONERS

¶6

Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary (Panchayat Raj and Rural Development), A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. .. RESPONDENTS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.11254 of 2006

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

Heard both the learned counsel.

¶10

2. The petitioners filed the present Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of 1^st respondent dated 19.5.2006 and consequential proceedings of the 2^nd respondent proceedings No.1641/2005/A2, dated 25.5.2006 as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to due procedure of law and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other suitable orders.

¶11

3. The order dated 19.5.2006 reads as hereunder: “The orders issued in proceedings No.1641/2005/A2/A4, dated 12.5.2006 are hereby stayed until further order.

¶12

The Hon’ble Minister (PR) desires to hear the petition filed by Smt.S.Ramadevi, Sarpanch, Mucharla Gram Panchayat, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District on 31.05.2006 at 11-00 AM. Inform all concerned to attend the hearing along with all relevant records. Direct the District Panchayat officer to meet the Deputy Secretary (Vig.II) along with a report to brief him of the facts of the case well in advance on the date of hearing”.

¶13

4. It is stated that the Government while exercising powers under Section 264 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, had granted an interim order and the revision may have to be heard. The main grievance of the petitioners is

¶14

that when action had been initiated as against 3^rd respondent at their instance, without giving opportunity to the petitioners making such an order is bad in law.

¶15

5. Be that as it may, inasmuch as the Revision is said to be pending with the Government-1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent is directed to dispose of the said Revision within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the meanwhile the petitioners also to be put on notice by the 1^st respondent prior to the Revision being taken up for further hearing.

¶16

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶17

--------------------------

¶18

08.06.2006

¶19

SSR

¶20

Issue order copy by Monday. (BO)

M. PRatap v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. PRatap v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Gongalla Venkataiah Vs G.Prabhakar

Chinnam Markendeswara Rao, Vs Chinnam Madhuru

Amarnath, Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Seethala Prasad, Vs Municipal Commissioner

Sri Kanaka Mahalaxmi Economically Backward Vs The Greater Visakhpathnam

The Gram Panchayat, Boddam Village, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh