Allowed

Smt.T.Rangamma, v. Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC26 Nov 2010WA/930/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the lower court order that dismissed a miscellaneous petition restoring a writ petition. The writ petition was restored and posted before the learned single judge.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was allowed, the miscellaneous petition was allowed, the earlier dismissal order was set aside, and the writ petition was restored.

Smt.T.Rangamma, Vs Vijayawada Municipal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

¶2

W.A.No.930 OF 2010

¶3

Dt 26.11.2010

¶4

Between : T.Rangamma, W/o. late Appa Rao, R/o 27-25-24, Kaspavari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada.

¶5

Appellant.

¶6

And Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Vijayawada.

¶7

Respondent.

¶8

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

¶10

W.A.No. 930 of 2010

¶11

JUDGMENT: (per B.PRAKASH RAO, ACJ)

¶12

This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.30185 of 2010 in W.P.No.4296 of 2004 dated 19.10.2010, dismissing the miscellaneous petition.

¶13

The writ petition was filed by the appellant to declare the action of the respondent – Corporation in interfering with her private property as illegal, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 07-082009 in the absence of her counsel. The above petition was filed by her to set aside the dismissal order dated 07.08.2009 passed in W.P.No.4296 of 2004 and to restore the writ petition to file.

¶14

In this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the only grievance of the appellant is that the writ petition was dismissed on merits in the absence of her counsel and the petition filed for restoration thereof was also dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence this writ appeal.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire material available on record.

¶16

Having regard to the fact that the counsel for the appellant was not heard as he was not present, it is felt desirable that the matter should be decided on merits rather than allowing it to go as one sided order. Further, our entire endeavor is to see that an opportunity is provided to the counsel for the appellant rather than accepting the order of the learned single judge.

¶17

In the circumstances, the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single judge dismissing the miscellaneous petition is set aside and accordingly W.P.M.P No. 30185 of 2010 is allowed and the earlier order dismissing the writ petition No.4296 of 2004 dated 07.08.2009 is set aside and the writ petition stands restored. Office is directed to post the writ petition before the learned single Judge.

¶18

_______________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, ACJ

¶19

_____________________ V.SURI APPA RAO,J lvl/ks 26.11.2010

¶20

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

¶21

W.A.No. 930 of 2010 (PER HACJ)

¶22

Dt. 26.11.2010

Smt.T.Rangamma, v. Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.T.Rangamma, v. Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

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

M. Shankaraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Srinivas Reddy Vs Joint Collector

Bandila Subrahmanyam Vs The District Collector, Nellore

Voggu Murali Vs State of A.P

M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs M/s. Hyderabad Coach Builders and Fabricators

R.Ramu Vs The Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong