Disposed
Dwarampudi Bhaskara Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Telangana HCWP/24858/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
WRIT PETITION No. 24858 of 2015
Dt:11.08.2015
Between:
D.Bhaskara Reddy and another.
… Petitioners
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh and another.
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
WRIT PETITION No. 24858 of 2015
PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.Panduranga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
The petitioners, in the writ petition, seek the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of vacancy remission by refunding the property tax as contemplated under Section 232 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to the petitioners in respect of the godowns owned by them, bearing Door Nos.16-22-24/H & I of the first petitioner and Door No.16-22-24/B, C, K and L of the second petitioner situated at Dummulapeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents herein to refund the said amount forthwith to the petitioners in respect of the said godowns and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Having regard to the typical nature of the prayer and the peculiar facts of the case, we are satisfied that this writ petition can be conveniently disposed of by the following order:
“The representation made by the petitioners, dated 04.05.2013 (Ex.P1), seeking similar relief, may be considered and decided by the concerned authority on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not examined merits of the case.”
With these observations, we dispose of the writ petition. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ________________________ S.V. BHATT, J Dt:11.08.2015 kdl
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Bhaskara Reddy
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Dilip B. Bhosale
S.V. Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court