Disposed

Md. Sofi v. The Executive Officer

Telangana HC24 Sept 2014WP/2574/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice under the Cantonment Act. It directed the Executive Officer to consider the petitioners' submitted explanation before taking action, keeping an interim order in force.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners' explanation submitted on 7.02.2006. The interim order dated 17.02.2006 is to continue.

Md. Sofi Vs The Executive Officer — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶2

W.P.No.2574 of 2006

¶3

Between:

¶4

1. 1. Md. Sofi and others.

¶5

PETITIONERS

¶6

AND

¶7

1. The Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment, Secunderabad, and others.

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the notice Eb/Sy.No.67 & 69/IAL CHS/863/14, dated 03.01.2006, issued by the Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment, the 1^st respondent.

¶11

2. Heard Sri K. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3

¶12

3. The 1^st respondent issued the impugned notice, calling upon the petitioners as to why action should not be taken against them under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924. In fact, the petitioners, in response to the said show cause notice, submitted explanation dated 7.02.2006, justifying their conduct. Even though a number of averments have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the implead petitions, filed by the third parties, this Court does not propose to go into all the factual controversies in view of the nature of the controversy involved in the present writ petition.

¶13

4. As the petitioner had already submitted explanation as long back as on 7.02.2006 in response to the show cause notice, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the said explanation submitted by the petitioners and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶14

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider the explanation dated 7.02.2006 submitted by the petitioners in response to the impugned notice Eb/Sy.No.67 & 69/IAL CHS/863/14, dated 03.01.2006. Pending

¶15

consideration of the said explanation, interim order dated 17.02.2006 shall continue to operate. No order as to costs.

¶16

_______________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI. 24^th September, 2014 Js.

Md. Sofi v. The Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Sofi v. The Executive Officer

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

Sri Ramalaya Committee,Malakcharla,registered society Vs The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari District

Madugani Sudharshan Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Andhra

R.Prabhakar Reddy Vs Union of India

Sri Cherukuri Tarakaramakrishna Prasad Vs Sri Chennakeswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, rep by

M/s. Ashok Talkies (Old and New), rep by Mr. Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Ganta Jaganmohan Rao, Vs Special Cadre Deputy Registrar / Officer on Special Duty