Disposed

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

Telangana HC16 Jun 2006WP/11898/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought declaration of respondents' inaction regarding lease extension, refund, and alternative ramp location. The court directed the first respondent to dispose of a pending representation within three months and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the representation dated 2.5.2006 submitted by the petitioner within three months.

O. Murali, Vs The District Level Committee… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.11898 of2006

¶3

DATED 16.06.2006

¶4

Between: O.Murali .. 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.11898 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 Pallipadu village Sand Reach granted to him pursuant to the Tender Notice No.650/2003A3, dated 16.6.2004 issued by the 3^rd respondent during period he has not conducted quarrying operations either due to floods or by objection caused by the villagers or in the alternative refund the lease amount for the said period and the inaction on the part of respondents in identifying an alternative place where the ramp could

¶11

be formed as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith extend the lease for the period during which sand could not be quarried or in the alternative refund the lease amount for the said period and further direct the respondents to identify an alternative place where the ramp could be formed and for pass such other suitable orders.

¶12

3. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation dated 2.5.2006 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 2.5.2006 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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O. Murali, 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

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

Manchala Ramanaiah 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