Disposed

Arkala Vijay Goud v. The Government of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Oct 2014WP/31990/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an interim suspension order granted by the Commissioner. The Court held it inappropriate to interfere with the interim stay while an appeal is pending before the Commissioner, directing him to dispose of the appeal within two months without treating this judgment as an endorsement on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without interference; respondent directed to dispose of pending appeal within two months.

Arkala Vijay Goud Vs The Government of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31990 of 2014

¶2

Dated 27.10.2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

Arkala Vijay Goud

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Govt. of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies dept., Hyderabad and 8 others.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Civil Supplies

¶11

Counsel for respondent No.4: Mr.V.Venkataramana, Senior Counsel for M/s.Bharadwaj Associates

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

Order:

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed for a certiorari to call

¶15

for records in CCS Proceeding No.E2/420/2014 (earlier numbered as E2/240/2014) and to quash Order, dated 13-10-2014, passed therein by respondent No.2.

¶16

I have heard Mr.C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (TG) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.V.Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

¶17

The petitioners, who claim to be the owners of small plots of different extents situated at Bowrampet Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by grant of interim order of suspension by respondent No.2- Commissioner, pending appeal filed by respondent No.4 against Order, dated 0204-2014, passed by respondent No.3- Collector, refusing to issue B-form license in his favour.

¶18

Inasmuch as the appeal is pending before respondent No.2, who has exercised his discretion by granting an interim order pending appeal, I find it inappropriate to interfere with the said interim order at this stage. However, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal itself after hearing both the

¶19

parties within two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is, however, made clear that disposal of this Writ Petition shall not be construed that this Court has endorsed the order impugned in this Writ Petition on merits and the impugned order shall not weigh with respondent No.2, in any manner, while disposing of the appeal.

¶20

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

¶21

As a sequel, WPMP.No.39995 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 27^th October, 2014 LUR

Arkala Vijay Goud v. The Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arkala Vijay Goud v. The Government of Telangana

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

Vegesna Venkata Naga Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Raju Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Self Help Group Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Kudupudi Santhi Bushanam, Vs Sri Mutyala Raju Revu, I.A.S.

Sri Maskuri Narsing Rao, Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Smt Yasmeen Fathima, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

The Anuman Fishermen Co-operative Society Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.