Remanded

K.Sridevi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC26 Apr 2012WP/12470/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged tax enhancement issued without considering objections. Court directed second respondent to consider objections after opportunity and dispose them with reasons within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent to consider petitioner's objections after giving opportunity and dispose of them with reasons within three weeks.

K.Sridevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12470 of 2012

¶3

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶4

The petitioner is the owner of a building bearing Municipal No.51/16/A. The same is assessed to half-yearly property tax of Rs.11,770/- for the year 2010-11. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation issued special notice under Section 220(2) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (‘GHMC Act’ for brevity), proposing to enhance the tax. The petitioner filed objections on 13.11.2011. It is alleged that without disposing of the objections as required under the said provision, the second respondent issued an endorsement confirming the enhancement, aggrieved by which, petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation of the proposal to revise the tax.

¶5

The Commissioner filed counter affidavit. While narrating the justification for enhancement with reference to various Government Orders, the counter does not specifically deny the allegation that the petitioner’s objections were not disposed by giving reasons.

¶6

After hearing the counsel for petitioner and the Standing Counsel for Kurnool Municipal Corporation, having regard to the provisions of Section 220(2) of GHMC Act, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the objections filed by the petitioner after giving opportunity and dispose of the same by giving reasons, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶7

The writ petition as also the miscellaneous petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to

¶8

costs.

¶9

______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶10

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶11

Date: 26.4.2012 kvs

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.12470 of 2012

¶15

26.4.2012

¶16

kvs

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.12470 of 2012

Date: 26.4.2012

Between:

K.Sridevi.

.. Petitioner

And

State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, M.A. & U.D., Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.

¶26

.. Respondents

K.Sridevi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sridevi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

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

Smt. K Vijayakumari Vs The Principal Secretary

M/s. Mbs Jewellers Private Limited, Vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal

M/s. Aditya Engineers and Technicians Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) - Audit

Dinesh Agarwal Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mekala Audiseshaiah Vs The District Collector and Chairman

G. Saibaba, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh