Dismissed

Mohammed Moinuddin v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Apr 2009WP/20838/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking directions to frame fair rent guidelines and quashing G.O.Ms.No. 636 of 1983 was dismissed as the cause of action merged upon legislative amendments to the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous due to subsequent amendments to the Act causing the cause of action to merge.

Mohammed Moinuddin Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.20838 of 2001

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Mohammed Moinuddin S/o. Mohd. Jamaluddin

¶10

H.No. 22-5-117/6 Suraj Market

¶11

Gulzar House Hyderabad - 1 2 Ghulam Dastagir Khan S/o. Omar Daraz Khan H.No. 22-5-123 & 124

¶12

Gulzar House Hyderabad - 1

¶13

3 T.Pramod Kumar S/o.Vasudev Rao

¶14

M/s T.N.Pandarinath & Bros at 5-8-221, Rampratap Bhavan Dharmashala, Nampally Station Road Hyderabad

¶15

4 N.Lakshminarayana S/o. Veeraiah Raj Dresses at Mulgi.No. 5-8-220

¶16

Nampally Station Road Hyderabad

¶17

5 T.Mahadev S/o. T.Pandarinath M/s T.N.Pandarinath & Bros at 5-8-222 Nampally Station Road Hyderabad

¶18

..... PETITIONERS

¶19

AND

¶20

1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by Secretary General Admn. Department Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶21

2 Mahavir Prasad S/o. Suraj Prasad H.No.21-7-110 Mamajamela Pathak Hyderabad

¶22

3 Ramesh Prasad S/o. late Ganesh Prasad H.No.21-7-110 Mamajamela Pathak Hyderabad

¶23

4 Om Prakash S/o. late Ganesh Prasad H.No.21-7-110 Mamajamela Pathak Hyderabad

¶24

5 Satish Kumar S/o. late Ganesh Prasad H.No.21-7-110 Mamajamela Pathak Hyderabad

¶25

6 Mahender Kumar S/o. late Jagadish Prasad H.No.21-7-110 Mamajamela Pathak

¶26

Hyderabad

¶27

7 Pavan Kumar S/o. late Jagadish Prasad

¶28

H.No.21-7-110 Mamajamela Pathak

¶29

Hyderabad

¶30

8 Rampratap Bhavan Dharmashala Trust a Trust registered under Indian Trusts Act having its office at H.No.5-8-223, Nampally Station Road, rep.by its Principal Trustee

¶31

Sri Ram Nivas Parri, S/o.late Kanhaiyalal Pitti age 69, R/o.Plot-19, Rd.No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶32

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶33

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus direction to the 1st respondent to frame rules under Sec.30 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act 1960 fixing proper guidelines for the determination of the fair rent by the rent control tribunals while exercising jurisdiction under Sec.4(1) of the said Act and also to call for the records of GO.Ms.No.636 of 1983 (GAD) (Accom) Dt.29/12/1983 and stike down the same as violative of the rights of the petitioners under Art.14 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR

¶36

The Court made the following :

¶37

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and

¶38

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶39

WRIT PETITION No.20838 of 2001

¶40

COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah)

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents submit that after filing of the writ petition, certain amendments have been made to the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. It is stated that in view of the same, the cause of action does not survive for adjudication in this writ petition.

¶42

Recording the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J

¶44

__________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶45

Date : 08-04-2009 Prv

¶46

..... REGISTRAR

¶47

// TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies

¶48

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TPK}

Mohammed Moinuddin v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Moinuddin v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Chinna Narasimhulu Vs The Election Commission of India

Vishwa Santhi Agro Industries, Vs State of A.P. Rep by its District Collector

Thelaprolu Venkat Suman Subba Rao, Vs Canara Bank, Iron Centre, Vijayawada, rep. by its

Palavalasa Janardhan Rao Vs The Election Commission of India, represented by its

M/s Kaveri Elevators, Vs The Assistnat Commissioner (Ct), Audit

The a.P.State Cooperative Societies Vs The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of