Dismissed

T. Bheemamma v. The Asst Director

Telangana HC7 Oct 2013WP/28966/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.28966 of 2013 complaining about non-implementation of a prior court order regarding quarry lease renewal. The court held the petition misconceived as relief was already granted earlier and dismissed it, leaving the petitioner to seek enforcement in the prior writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; W.P.M.P.No.35969 of 2013 disposed of as infructuous.

T. Bheemamma Vs The Asst Director — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28966 of 2013

¶2

Date: 07.10.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

T.Bheemamma and The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ranga Reddy District and others

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Arun Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology Counsel for respondent No.4: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is filed with the grievance that despite the order dated 19.12.2011 in W.P.No.28575 of 2010, respondent No.1 has not been considering the petitioner’s renewal application for quarry lease.

¶10

A perusal of the abovementioned order passed by this Court would show that having regard to the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by respondent No.2 allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection of the petitioner’s renewal application by respondent No.1, this Court gave a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s application for renewal of lease on payment of entire amount due by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. The petitioner pleaded that though she has paid the entire dues and requested respondent No.1 to grant renewal in pursuance of the abovementioned order of this Court, the said respondent has not complied with the same.

¶11

In my opinion, this writ petition is wholly misconceived, for the relief was already granted by this Court to the petitioner with appropriate directions as noted above. If respondent No.1 has not been implementing the order of this Court, the remedy of the petitioner lies in initiating appropriate proceedings for enforcement of the order of this Court in the previous writ petition. As the petitioner availed the wrong remedy, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for adjudication on merits. Instead, the petitioner is left with liberty to avail appropriate remedy for enforcement of the order dated 19.12.2011 in W.P.No.28575 of 2010.

¶12

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶13

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35969 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶15

07^th October, 2013 GHN

T. Bheemamma v. The Asst Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Bheemamma v. The Asst Director

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

Kapa Ramalaxmamma Memorial Spiritual Educational Vs The Commissioner and Director of Settlements

Palagani Yallamanda Reddy Vs Danda Venkateswara Reddy

KothaPalli Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Uddutta Satyanarayana S/o. Venkaiah, Vs The Thasildhar

Ganta Lakshmi Devi W/o. Late Sorry Reddy, Vs The District Collector, Nalgonda District.

B.Chellayamma, W/o.late Thata Rao, Vs The Hindustan Shipyard limited