Disposed

Manchala Ramanaiah v. The DIstrict Level Committee for Sand Auctions

Telangana HC13 Jun 2006WP/11638/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed regarding non-extension of a sand lease. Instead of deciding merits, the court directed the first respondent to dispose of a pending representation filed by the petitioner within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 3-5-2006 within three months.

Manchala Ramanaiah Vs The DIstrict Level Committee for… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶2

W.P.No.11638 of 2006

¶3

th Date: 13 June, 2006

¶4

Between :-

¶5

Manchala Ramanaiah S/o. Seshaiah ..petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

1. The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions,

¶8

Zilla Parishad Compound, Nellore District

¶9

2. The Joint Collector, Nellore District

¶10

3. The District Panchayat Officer, Nellore. ..Respondents

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶12

W.P.No.11638 of 2006

¶13

ORDER:-

¶14

Heard the Counsel.

¶15

2. The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in not extending the lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of Leburu Bit-I Sand Reach granted to me pursuant to the Tender Notice No.650/2003Ex.A.3, dated 16-6-2004, issued by the 3^rd respondent herein by a period of 4 ½ months (approx) or in the alternative refund the lease amount for the said period and also reimburse an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of the formation of ramp and laying of roads as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution of India and for issuance of a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith extended the lease by a period of 4 ½ months (approx) or in the alternative refund the lease amount for the said period and also reimburse an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of the formation of ramp and laying of roads and pass such other suitable orders.

¶16

3. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation on 3-5-2006 and the same had not been disposed of. Several other factual details also had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the W.P. The other factual details need not be dealt with at length. Suffice to state that inasmuch as a representation made by the petitioner is pending with the 1^st respondent, it would be just and proper to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following direction :-

¶17

“The 1^st respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner dated 3-5-2006 in accordance with law within a period of three months from today.”

¶18

No costs.

¶19

Justice P.S.Narayana

¶20

13^th June, 2006

¶21

SMR

Manchala Ramanaiah v. The DIstrict Level Committee for Sand Auctions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manchala Ramanaiah v. The DIstrict Level Committee for Sand Auctions

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

M.v.Ramakrishna, Vs The Executive Engineer

Kommana Srinivasa Rao S/o Jalaiah Vs The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur

M/s.Venkat Sai Construction, Plot No.124, Tirumalagiri, Vs The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division

Muthyala Veerendra Babu Vs Collector (Pw) East Godavari District at Kakinada.

M/s.Nandipati Rajya Lakshmi Mines, Vs The Government of India

M. Devendra Rao, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad