Muthangi Balakrishna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

2. The impugned auction notification shows that auction was to be held on 04.11.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that yesterday i.e., 04.11.2011 when the auction proceedings were taken up, there were no bidders and as such the auction did not take place.

¶14

3. The primary grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the geo-coordinates of the sand quarry area as notified in the auction notification are not correctly fixed and that petitioners’ lands are likely to be affected on account of the erroneous fixation of geo-coordinates. Since the auction held on 04.11.2011 was virtually frustrated on account of lack of bidders, the petitioners may make proper representation to the respondents with regard to their grievance as to

¶15

the fixation of geo-coordinates and if such representation is made by the petitioners within a week from today the second respondent shall look into the said grievance, consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously before issuing fresh auction notification.

¶16

4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶17

____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶18

Date: November 05, 2011. BSB

Muthangi Balakrishna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthangi Balakrishna v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cheepurupalli Shirish Vs Central Counselling Board ( Aieee - 2009 ) rep. by its

Chunduru Sriteja Vs The Chairman

Y.Govinda Vs The Tahsildar,Devarapalli Mandal

Anugula Rajaiah, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Smt. Margani Sireesha, Vs The Chief Passport Officer

T. Yesupadam Vs The Project Director