Disposed

Manchala Ramanaiah v. The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions

Telangana HC16 Jun 2006WP/11895/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a declaration of inaction and an order to extend a sand lease or refund dues. The Single Judge directed thefirst respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within three months and disposed of the Writ Petition with this direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Manchala Ramanaiah Vs The District Level… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.11895 of2006

¶3

DATED 16.06.2006

¶4

Between: Manchala Ramanaiah .. PETITIONER

¶5

Versus

¶6

The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Zilla Parishad Compound, Nellore District, Nellore, represented By its Chairman and two others. .. RESPONDENTS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.11895 of2006

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

Heard the counsel on record.

¶10

2. The Writ Petition is filed praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in not extending the lease granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of Veguru village Sand Reach granted to him pursuant to the Tender Notice No.650/2003A3, dated 16.6.2004 issued by the 3^rd respondent by a period of 5 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 the

¶11

petitioner under the Constitution of India and for issuance of a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith extend the lease by a period of 5 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 for pass such other suitable orders.

¶12

3. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation dated 3.5.2006 to the 1^st respondent, but, despite repeated requests, he is not disposing of the said representation. No doubt several factual details had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following direction:

¶13

“The 1^st respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the representation dated 3.5.2006 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.

¶14

4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

16.06.2006

¶16

SSR

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chadala Janakirama Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Marvel Minerals, Vs The General Manager

Setti Gangadhara Swamy, Vs The govt ofA.P., rep. by its Secretary

O. Murali, Vs The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions

Manchala Ramanaiah Vs The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions

Smt. K. Chellayyamma Devi, Vs Government of A.P