Disposed

Bejjanki Muralidhar Rao, v. Regional Manager

Telangana HC3 Sept 2015WP/22599/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an old writ petition filed in 2004 regarding the non-use of a constructed bus stand. The Court observed that the facility was built for public benefit and directed respondents to use it if not already done, without substantive adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Court expressed hope that respondents would start using the bus stand if not already done.

Bejjanki Muralidhar Rao, Vs Regional Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 22599 OF 2004

¶5

Date: 03.09.2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bejjanki Muralidhar Rao

¶8

… Petitioner And Regional Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar District & others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 22599 OF 2004

¶12

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

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

This writ petition was filed in 2004 for the following relief:

¶15

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners herein pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not using the new bus stand constructed in Ac.2.00 land in Sy.1061 of Raikal Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional apart from being contrary to public interest and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith use the new bus stand constructed in Ac.2.00 land in Sy.1061 of Raikal Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Corporation has already put the bus stand to use, which was constructed some time in 2002.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents is not correct. We would not like to enter into this controversy. It is needless to mention that the bus stand was constructed for the people in Raikal Village by spending huge amounts. We hope and trust that the

¶18

respondents shall start using the bus stand, if they have not started its use so far.

¶19

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶20

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶21

________________________ S.V. BHATT, J Date: 03.09.2015 ES

Bejjanki Muralidhar Rao, v. Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bejjanki Muralidhar Rao, v. Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Srinivasulu S/o K. Venkata Ramana Vs The Election Tribunal of Municipality-cum-The Ccourt of the

Dr.M.Srinivas, Vs Joint Transport Commissioner and

Y.V.B. Rajendra Prasad Vs The Election Commision of India, Rep,. by its

Medical Council of India Vs Dar-Us-Salam Educational Trust

P. Shameer Basha, Vs The District Collector, Anantapur District.

Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Vs Titan Industries Limited, Golden enclave Tower-a Airport