Partly allowed

P.Mahankala Rao, Son of late Ramaswamy v. The Union of India

Telangana HC23 Sept 2013WP/24056/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition was allowed in terms of a common order from a related set of petitions. Directions regarding license renewal and reasons from the common order are made part of this order. Interim orders are vacated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in terms of common order dated 16.08.2013; reasons and directions thereunder form part of this order; interim order vacated; related petitions disposed of as infructuous.

P.Mahankala Rao, Son of late Ramaswamy Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24056 of 2013

¶2

Date: 23.09.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

P.Mahankala Rao and another

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

The Union of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C. Ramachandra Raju

¶10

Counsel for the respondents: Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, standing counsel for Railways

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶13

“…to issue a Writ, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing the Tender Notification No.1/2013 dated 21.05.2013 in respect of the stall of the 1^st petitioner and the other Tender Notification No.2/2013 dated 22.05.2013 in respect of the stall of the 2^nd petitioner and in ignoring the right of the petitioners for renewal of their licenses for another period of 3 years with effect from 21.07.2013 and the inaction of the 3^rd respondent in not considering the application of the 1^st petitioner dated 20.05.2013 for renewal of his licence is contrary to Catering Policy, 2010, is highly unwarranted, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the 3^rd respondent to renew the licences of the petitioners as per Catering Policy, 2010; and pass such other order or orders…”

¶14

At the hearing, Sri T.S.Venkataramana, learned standing counsel for Railways, has not disputed that the issues raised in this writ petition are squarely covered by the common order dated 16.08.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.14577, 14888 and 15072 of 2013. The learned standing counsel has placed before the Court, a copy of common judgment dated 12.09.2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1573, 1574 and 1575 of 2013 dismissing the Writ Appeals filed against the order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions.

¶15

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the common order dated 16.08.2013 in W.P.Nos.14577, 14888 and 15072 of 2013 with the direction that the reasons and directions contained therein shall form part of this order.

¶16

As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, interim order dated 16.08.2013 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.29571 of 2013 and W.V.M.P.No.2922 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶18

23^rd September, 2013 GHN

P.Mahankala Rao, Son of late Ramaswamy v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mahankala Rao, Son of late Ramaswamy v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gadapa Swamy Vs Gundlapelli Srinivas

M.Jambulaiah, Vs Smt. Palamarri Lachamma

P.Talari Venkata Swamy Vs Smt.P.Rajamma

A.Jagadish Gupta Vs Smt.a.Anitha

New Apsara Traders Vs M/ s. Rupa Steels Ltd. (In Liqn.)

Pioneer Habitation Projects Vs G Shankar