Dismissed

Josyula Satyanarayana Das v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Sept 2013WP/27205/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed against government officials attempting to unsettle rights based on earlier observations, the court allowed the official investigation to proceed strictly within limits regarding fraud or misrepresentation while ensuring notice for adverse orders before disposing of the petitioner's challenge.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition and connected miscellaneous writ petition disposed of.

Josyula Satyanarayana Das Vs Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27205 of 2013 Date:18.09.2013

¶2

Between: Josyula Satyanarayana Das, S/o late J.Bhuvaneshwar Das and two others.

¶3

.... Petitioners

¶4

And

¶5

The Govt of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Urban Land Ceiling Department, Hyderabad and four others.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri O.Manoher Reddy For Sri V.V.Satish

¶8

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader

¶9

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that taking a cue from the observations made by this Court in judgment, dated 03.12.2011, in Writ Petition No.5419 of 2011 in C.C.No.392 of 2011, the official respondents have been trying to unsettle the rights of the petitioners.

¶11

Sri O.Manoher Reddy, the learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, the learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that this Court has left respondent No.1 free to take appropriate action against the petitioners only if the ACB and Vigilance reports indicted or it is found that G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.06.2008 was issued on account of fraud or misrepresentation. He

¶12

submitted that in the guise of examining the said aspects, at the instance of respondent No.5, the official respondents are trying to broaden the scope of the whole enquiry with a view to cancel the said G.O. issued in favour of the petitioners and confer some benefit on respondent No.5.

¶13

It needs to be mentioned that while rejecting the claim of respondent No.5 over the property in question in totto, this Court has only left respondent No.1 free to examine the limited aspect as to whether the said G.O. issued in favour of the petitioners was vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. Since the petitioners filed this Writ Petition on a mere apprehension that the official respondents may enlarge the scope of the enquiry, I am not inclined to interdict the enquiry at this stage. While reiterating the observations made by this Court in the above-mentioned judgment, this Court hopes that the official respondents will strictly confine themselves to the parameters of the liberty given by this Court in the abovementioned judgment. If any order adverse to the interests of the petitioners is proposed to be passed, the petitioners shall be given a notice and an opportunity of representing their case before respondent No.1.

¶14

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶15

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.33685 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

__________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶17

18^th September 2013 DR

Josyula Satyanarayana Das v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Josyula Satyanarayana Das v. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Vittal Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board,. Court compound

Ellanki Narender Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Vittal, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Golla Govindu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

M. Balaswamy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Narisetti Padma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Collector