Disposed

The Kanlpakam Gram Panchayat v. The Swayambhu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple

Telangana HC18 Jul 2006WP/19531/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a tender for a parking fee licence, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the subject place and report on the location of the parking lot and the facilities provided by the petitioner Gram Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. R. Chandra Reddy as Advocate Commissioner with a fee of Rs. 10,000 to inspect the subject place and submit a report on specified issues within four weeks.

The Kanlpakam Gram Panchayat Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

: PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE: N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 19531 of 2004

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Kanipakam Gram Panchayat Kanipakam (V), Irala Mandal, Chittoor District rep. by its Sarpanch Sri R. Devarajulu Naidu S/o.D. Seshadri Naidu.

¶8

..... Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The Swayambhu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple Kanipakam, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District rep. by its Executive Officer and regional Joint Commissioner.

¶11

....Respondent

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing tender notification Rc.No.1337/2004 dt: 15-102004 to conduct auction for grant of licence to collect parking fee is arbitrary, illegal and consequently restrain the respondent from opening new cart stand within the Kanipakam Gram Panchayat limits;

¶13

Whereas the Court upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support there of and the order of the High Court dated: 25-102004, 26-10-2004 & 09-11-2004 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Mr. V. Venugopala Rao, Advocate for the respondent, observed that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerGram Panchayat that the respondent issued tender Notification dated: 15-10-2004 inviting tenders for maintaining the parking lot and for collecting fees and he submits the petitioner-Gram Panchayat is providing sufficient parking space, good roads and is also providing drinking water to all the pilgrims visiting the temple;

¶14

Whereas on the other hand learned standing Counsel for the respondent-temple submits that in fact, the parking lot, which was put for auction is situated in a different village, namely, Punyasamudhram Village of Thavanampally Mandal, in an extent of Ac. 2.35 cents situated in Sy. No. 1/13 to 1/16, 1/16A and 2/2. Hence the petitionerGram panchayat has no locus standi to question the said auction

¶15

notification and he also denied providing of any of the facilities as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner;

¶16

..2..

¶17

And whereas for clarification of the aforesaid facts, the Court deems it appropriate to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and having obtained ‘no objection’ from the learned counsel appearing on either side appointed Mr. R. Chandra Reddy, Advocate, 143, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500028 as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the subject place and submit a report regarding the issues mentioned below;

¶18

You viz:

¶19

Mr. R. Chandra Reddy, Advocate, 143, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad500028

¶20

are hereby appointed as Advocate Commissioner, you are directed to inspect the subject place and submit a report regarding the following issues;

¶21

1. Whether the location of the parking lot is situated within the petitioner-Grampanchayat limits?

¶22

2. Whether the said Grampanchayat is providing any facilities as stated by the learned counsel appearing on its behalf, namely, providing drinking water, laying roads, and providing lighting?

¶23

You are directed to submit your report within four weeks from the date of this order. You are informed that the learned counsel appearing on either side are directed to provide necessary arrangements for your inspection.

¶24

You are further informed that your fee for this purpose is fixed at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), which is inclusive of boarding, lodging etc to be borne by both the parties equally.

¶25

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶26

// TRUE COPY //

¶27

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶28

¶29

1. Mr. R. Chandra Reddy, Advcoate, 141, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500028. (BY SPECIAL MESSENGER with a copy

¶30

of petition and affidavit and counter affidavit also) 2. One spare copy. Ksv

¶31

HIGH COURT Ksv Date of drafting: 23-12-2005

¶32

NVRJ

¶33

DATE: 14-12-2005

¶34

NOTE: LIST THE MATTER FOUR WEEKS

¶35

ORDER

¶36

WP. No. 19531 of 2004

¶37

APPOINTMENT OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

The Kanlpakam Gram Panchayat v. The Swayambhu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kanlpakam Gram Panchayat v. The Swayambhu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple

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

A.Venkateswarlu Vs Government of a.P.rep.by Secretary to Government

V.Siva Subba Rao, Vs the Regional Manager, Apsrtc

L.L.M.R. Susheela Devi, Vs Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Votokuri Yadagiri Vs The A.P. Transco

Sri N. Thirupathi Rao S/o Rajeswara Rao Vs The Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd., repby

Kumari D. Laxmi Vs Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited