Disposed

D. Seshanna v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC18 Apr 2012WP/11015/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order disposing of a writ petition where a contractor sought mandamus for return of E.M.D and F.S.D deposits. Court directed the corporation to consider the legal notice within one month without granting interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Corporation to consider the petitioner's case pursuant to legal notice dated 21.02.2012 within one month; no order as to costs.

D. Seshanna Vs The Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11015 of 2012

¶3

Date: April 18, 2012

¶4

Between: D. Seshanna … Petitioner

¶5

And The Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool. … Respondent

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.11015 of 2012

¶9

O R D E R:

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

¶11

2. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent in paying the due amounts to the petitioner towards the deposits of the civil contract works i.e., E.M.Ds and F.S.Ds, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to pay the said amounts at once with interest.

¶12

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a contractor for civil works has got contract works for Zilla Parishad

¶13

and Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, and completed the same within the time stipulated. Before entering into the contract for execution of the said work, he deposited E.M.D and F.S.D amounts with the respondent Corporation. Though the petitioner has completed the works entrusted to him within the time stipulated, the amounts deposited by the petitioner towards E.M.D and F.S.C. have not been returned. Therefore, the petitioner got issued legal notice dated 21.02.2012 to the respondent to pay the amounts due, but there is no response from the respondent. Hence, the writ petition.

¶14

4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner got issued legal notice dated 21.02.2012 to the respondent Corporation requesting to pay the above said amounts. Therefore, the respondent Corporation may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner.

¶15

5. Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner pursuant to the legal notice dated 21.02.2012 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs.

¶16

G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶17

Date: April 18, 2012. BSB

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.11015 of 2012

¶20

Date: April 18, 2012

¶21

BSB

D. Seshanna v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Seshanna v. The Commissioner

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

K. Syamsundar Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G Rajender Prasad, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

M. Ome Prakash Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Sri Rayala Raghu Vs The Greatr Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Galla Janakiram, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S Seetha Ratnam Mankiyamba Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh