Dismissed

Sadev Yada, v. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department

Telangana HC4 Dec 2007WP/23506/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court refused to adjudicate merits but directed the third respondent to dispose of pending appeals within four weeks. The Court also ordered respondents to maintain status quo until disposition, disposing the case at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Counsel heard; petitioner not taken to merits; third respondent directed to dispose of pending appeals within four weeks; respondents ordered to maintain status quo; case disposed at admission stage.

Sadev Yada, Vs The Deputy Commissioner… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN.

¶4

P R E S E N T

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶6

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 23506 of 2007 Between: Sadev Yadav & Ors. … Petitioners Versus The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. GANGARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Endowments GP for Revenue Sri Ch. Satish Kumar Sri N.Sridhar Reddy

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶9

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 23506 of 2007

¶11

O R D E R :

¶12

This Court ordered notice before admission on 06-11-

¶13

2007 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which was

¶14

subsequently extended for further limited period.

¶15

2. Sri Satish Kumar representing Respondent No.2 filed counteraffidavit.

¶16

3. Heard the counsel on record.

¶17

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and

¶18

Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, the learned counsel representing Respondent No.4-implead applicant.

¶19

5. Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, the learned counsel representing the

¶20

writ petitioners would submit that when the appeals are pending before the third respondent, the first respondent initiating action against the petitioners under section 83 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987 cannot be sustained.

¶21

In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents several averments were made.

¶22

This Court is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of

¶23

the respective contentions of the parties.

¶24

6. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, declaring the act of the first respondent initiating action against the petitioners under section 83 (20 of the AP Endowments Act during the pendency of appeal pending before the third respondent against the orders of occupancy rights certificate issued in favour of second respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently to direct the first respondent not to proceed further with an enquiry in OA.No.82 to 114/2007 till the disposal of the appeals pending before the third respondent and further to direct the third respondent to dispose of the appeal nos. F2/IA23/07 and F2/IA26/07 filed by the petitioners and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶25

7. It is stated that the appeals filed by the writ petitioners are pending before the Joint Collector, Mahbubnagar, the third respondent herein and till the disposal of the appeals if any further action is initiated by the first respondent against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act referred to supra, the rights of the petitioners would be prejudiced. In-as-much-as, it is stated that the appeals are said to be pending on the file of third respondent, let the third respondent dispose of the said appeals, within a period of four

¶26

weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till the

¶27

disposal of the said appeals, let the respondents maintain statusquo

¶28

obtaining as on today.

¶29

8. The writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No

¶30

costs.

¶31

JUSTICE P . S . NARAYANA .

¶32

04/12/2007.

¶33

NB: Furnish CC of the Order tomorrow. B/o. IsL

Sadev Yada, v. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadev Yada, v. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department

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

Hanuman Vyas, Vs The State through the Inspector of Police

Chitikina Satyanarayana, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

The a.P.Kerosene Hawkers Sangam Krosur Mandal Vs The Joint Collector

Praveen Kumar Bolisetty, S/o Srinivasarao Vs The Governmen of India rep by its Secretary, Ministryof

Shaik Ismail Shariff, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer (Civil Supplies)

T. Ratnamaiah , Venkataratnam Vs The Joint Collector, Anantapur District