Dismissed

T.Y.Shekar S/o Late Yellaiah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented

Telangana HC18 Feb 2013WP/37787/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court found the writ petition challenging an enhanced property tax demand infructuous. The respondents withdrew the impugned non-speaking order and passed a fresh revisional order, rendering the grievance subsided. The petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Court if aggrieved by the fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

T.Y.Shekar S/o Late Yellaiah, Vs The… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.37787 of 2012

¶3

ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram):

¶4

Heard Ms.Sridevi, the learned counsel representing

¶5

Sri M. Panduranga Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.A.Deepthi, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

¶6

In essence the demand notice dated 13.08.2012 which is based on proceedings dated 29.03.2012 of the third respondent, is challenged in this writ petition. By a special notice dated 29.08.2011, property tax in respect of the petitioner’s premises bearing H.No.42974, M.J Colony, Malkajgiri was proposed to be enhanced. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.11.2011 setting out objections to the enhancement of property tax. It would appear that the third respondent issued a notice intimating the date of hearing of the revision to the petitioner. However, by an order dated 29.03.2012 the third respondent confirmed enhancement of property tax to Rs.3,46,563/- as against the proposed enhancement of Rs.5,50,999/as per the special notice dated 29.08.2011; and called upon the petitioner to pay property tax of Rs.3,46,563/- w.e.f. 01.04.2011. A consequent demand notice dated 13.08.2012 followed the communication dated 29.03.2012.

¶7

After filing of the writ petition, respondents 2 and 3 have realized the fundamental perversity of passing orders in the revision in mechanical and non-speaking terms and withdrew the order dated 29.03.2012 and have taken up for consideration the petitioner’s revision, afresh.

¶8

It is represented by Smt.A. Deepthi, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 that a fresh revisional order dated

¶9

14.02.2013 has been passed after due process of revisional hearing.

¶10

In the facts and circumstances and in the light of the developments adverted to above, the substantive grievance in the writ petition does not survive. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the fresh revisional order 14.02.2013 passed by the third respondent, he is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies thereagainst.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶13

Date: 18.02.2013

¶14

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.37787 of 2012

¶18

(order of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶19

Date: 18.02.2013

¶20

T.Y.Shekar S/o Late Yellaiah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Y.Shekar S/o Late Yellaiah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented

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

V.Arun Jyothi, Vs Government of India

M/s Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault Vs Union of India

M/s. Sanofi Passteur Holding Sa, Vs The Department of Revenue

Trinethra Superrentail Private Ltd., Registered Office Unit Vs Union of India through the secretary, Ministry of Finance

Ui Pipe Fitings Private Limited, Vs Union of India, rep. by its Secretary

M/s.Cyber Towers Vs Union of India., Through the Secretary Ministry of