Allowed

Gogula Venkatesh , Gogula Chitibabu v. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

Telangana HC2 Jul 2015WP/21190/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed regarding the non-payment of Rs.3,10,200/- deposited by the petitioner in favor of the High Court Registrar. The court allowed the petition directing a refund to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,10,200/- deposited by the petitioner via demand draft in his favor at the earliest.

Gogula Venkatesh , Gogula Chitibabu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.21190 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION (SR) No. 100065 OF 2015

¶4

Date: 02.07.2015

¶5

Between:

¶6

Gogula Venkatesh @ Gogula Chitibabu.

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Registrar (Judicial), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶10

… Respondent

¶11

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.21190 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION (SR) No. 100065 OF 2015

¶13

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶14

Heard Sri D.Y.N.L.N. Charyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Vinod Kumar Mathur, Chief Manager representing State Bank of Hyderabad, A.P. High Court Branch, Hyderabad, is present. He produced the original paying slip for our perusal.

¶15

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner makes the following

¶16

prayer:

¶17

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not paying the Rs.3,10,200/- which was deposited in favour of Registrar, Judicial vide account No.52005821812, dated 05.02.2015 by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection for the Bank in issuing a demand draft of the amount of Rs.3,10,200/- in favour of the petitioner since it is his monies.

¶19

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and having verified the original documents produced for our perusal by the Bank Manager, we allow the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned prayer. Registry is, however, directed to refund the amount deposited on behalf of the petitioner by his advocate Sri D.Y.N.L.N. Charyulu by demand draft in favour of the petitioner–Gogula

¶20

Venkatesh at the earliest.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶22

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶23

________________________ S.V. BHATT, J Date: 02.07.2015 ES

Gogula Venkatesh , Gogula Chitibabu v. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gogula Venkatesh , Gogula Chitibabu v. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

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

SIdharatha Academy of General and Technical Educ., Vs Govt of A.P.

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Union of India

M/s Zoa Zone Services Private Rd. Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Akula Balakrishna Sridhar Vs The Institution of Lokayukta and Upa lokayukta

M.D.,Apsrtc Vs Secretary,Grama Panchayat

Apsrtc, rep.by its Managing Director, Vs Grama Panchayat