Dismissed

Gundegalla Jangaiah, v. The Secretary (Electricity)

Telangana HC21 Feb 2014WA/1819/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by a school against an order directing it to shift premises. The Single Judge had refused to interfere despite safety concerns raised, reasoning that the children's safety was paramount. The High Court declined to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; matter arising from order dated 19.09.2017 stands closed; no order as to costs.

Gundegalla Jangaiah, Vs The Secretary (Electricity) — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1819 OF 2017

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order^passed dated 19-09-2017 in W.P. No. 32038 of 2017. on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Heera lslamic English ltledium School, Rep. by its, Correspondent^Ms. Nowhera Shaik, H.No. 2-4-661P143, P.No:43/P Sagbowli^(V), Upperpally, Attapur, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District, Telangana State.

¶10

Ms. Nowhera Shaik, D/o. Shaik Nanne Saheb,,0cc: Business, Fl/o Sth Floor, HS Residency, Nadeem Colony, Tolichowky, Hyderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary,, Department of School Education, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Telangana State.

¶14

The District Educational Officer, O/o. District Educational Office, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rajendra Nagar Circle, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State,

¶16

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, At, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, Telangana State'

¶17

...RES'.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS

¶18

|.A.NO: 1 OF 2017 WAMP. NO: 3 524 0F 2017

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto grant stay of all further Proceedings in Rc. No.332318212016, dated 16-10-2017 of the 2nd respondent,^pending disposal of the main writ appeal

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI.DIYAVAR HUSSIAN SHAIK Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR SCHOOL^EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI.NEELI ASHOK Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR^REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SILIRMA AND

¶23

THE HON' ]LE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶24

' VRIT APPEAL No.1819 of 2OL7

¶25

JUDGMENT: (, er the Hon'ble the Chi{ Justice Satish Chandra Shorma)

¶26

The prr sent writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 19.09.: 1017 passed by the learned Singlr: Judge in W.P.No.3203i ' of 2017.

¶27

The fac s of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred beirg aggrieved by the order dated 04,09.20 17 directing tht appellants/writ petitioners to shift their school and tl Le appellants/writ petitioners camo up before this Court st rting that they have submitted an application under the Building Regularisation Sc:eme for regularisatiol . of the unauthorised construcl.ion. The learned Sing .e Judge has declined to interfere with the order passe( by the District Educational Officer on the ground that safety of children, who are stud;ring in the school, is involved in the matter. Ho',vever, the respondents were directed to consider the grievance of the appellants/u rit petitioners for granting them some

¶28

¶29

reasonable time to shift the school^{from the premises in}

¶30

question.

¶31

This Court does not find^{any reason to interfere with}

¶32

the order passed by^{the learnedSingleJudge.}

¶33

The writ appeal is accordingly^dismissed.

¶34

The miscellaneous applications^{pending,if any' shall}

¶35

stand closed. There shall^{be no orderas to costs.}

¶36

SD/-M.VIJAYA BHASKAR DEPUTY RE ISTRAR

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

SEC OFFICER

¶39

To 1. Two CCs to GP^{FORSCHOOL EDUCATION,High Courtfor the Stateof} Telangana at HYderabad. [OUT]

¶40

z. fwo iCJ io GPFOR^{REV'ENUE,High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶41

s. oirtCdio SRI.DYAVAR^{HUSSIAN SHAIK, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶42

One CC to SRI.NEELI^{ASHOK, Advocate} IOPUCI

¶43

Two CD CoPies

¶44

One spare coPY

S.A BS {

.a-

HIGH COURT

DATED:3010312022

ORDER

WA.No.1819 ot 2017

( -fi=\L.1rt)
Av 7
(, dv
u
F s
eo qt<br>*,
3H

¶53

DISMISSING THE W./

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶55

Gundegalla Jangaiah, v. The Secretary (Electricity)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundegalla Jangaiah, v. The Secretary (Electricity)

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

B. Narasimha Reddy Vs Pappula Renaiah

B.Narasimha Reddy, Vs Smt. Baddam Vijay Lakshmi

B Narasimha Reddy Vs Nama Damodhar Reddy

M/s. Bhe(Randd) Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Vs M/s. Cubix Venture Private Limited

Bhel(Randd)Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs M/s Cubix Ventures Private Limited

Sri Kota Krishna Subramaniyam Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India