Remanded

Mandala Malla Reddy v. The Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation),Jalasoudha

Telangana HC27 Aug 2009WP/18004/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ mandamus directing the Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation) to consider a representation dated 19.08.2009 regarding an agreement for vehicle supply. The court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the respondent to consider the representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2009 and pass an appropriate order within four weeks.

Mandala Malla Reddy Vs The Chief Engineer (Minor… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18004 of 2009

¶3

DATE: 27.08.2009

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mandala Malla Reddy ... Petitioner

¶6

and

¶7

The Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation), Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.18004 of 2009

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to direct 2^nd respondent to consider his representation dated 19.08.2009 seeking execution of an

¶12

agreement in his favour for supply of vehicles on hire, for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010.

¶13

2. According to the petitioner, he is an unemployee and doing contract work. Initially, there was a contract between him and the Executive Engineer, I & CAD Irrigation Circle, Paddapalli, Karimnagar District - 2^nd respondent for supply of vehicles on hire for the period from 01.05.2002 to 31.10.2002 and thereafter it was extended from time to time upto 31.03.2009. Subsequently, though the Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation), Hyderabad - 1^st respondent has accorded permission for supply of vehicles on hire for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 by proceedings in CE(Minor Irrigation)/ DDM/ADM.2/ AE1/ 101/04, dated 20.07.2009, the 2^nd respondent is postponing execution of an agreement in that regard. Hence, he made a representation on 19.08.2009 to the 2^nd respondent seeking executiton of an agreement in his favour for supply of vehicles on hire, but so far the 2^nd respondent has not taken any action on his representation. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard both sides.

¶14

4. The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation has contended that before 31.03.2009 the Department was using the vehicles supplied by the petitioner only for the purpose of inspection and thereafter as the Department is having sufficient vehicles, it has not entered into any contract with the petitioner. The said contention put forth by the learned Government Pleader may not be necessary for disposal of this writ petition, for the reason that the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent on 19.08.2009 seeking execution of an agreement in his avour for supply of vehicles on hire for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. In the light of the same, this Court is of the view that this writ petition

¶15

can be disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner.

¶16

5. Accordingly, this writ petitiion is disposed of, at the stage of admission, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.08.2009 and pass an appropriate order thereon within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

_________________________

¶18

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J

¶19

27^th August, 2009

¶20

CBS

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.18004 of 2009

¶23

(Disposed of)

¶24

27^th August, 2009

¶25

CBS

Mandala Malla Reddy v. The Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation),Jalasoudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandala Malla Reddy v. The Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation),Jalasoudha

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

Sripathi Shiva Kumar, Vs The Joint Collector (Cs)

D. Kishore Kumar Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M/s S.R.S Agrow Vs The Commissioner and Directror of Agriculture

Duddukuri Sambasiva Rao Vs The District Collector / District Magistrate

Smt.Salma Naheed Vs Station House Officer, Hayathnagar P.S.

Pondilimarri Venkatachalapathy Vs The Station House Officer