Allowed

Smt Shahnaz Begum, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Sept 2015WP/28399/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three writ petitions challenging enhancement of property tax. The court directed the Commissioner to decide the petitioner's representation submitted on 07.04.2014 within four weeks and prohibited respondents from taking coercive action until the decision was communicated.

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner shall decide the representation within four weeks; coercive action by respondents stayed till decision communicated.

Smt Shahnaz Begum, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION Nos.28385, 28393 and 28399 OF 2015

¶5

DATED: 10.09.2015

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.28385 OF 2015 Between: Smt. Shahnaz Begum … Petitioner and The State of Telangana and others

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.28385, 28393 and 28399 of 2015

¶10

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

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶12

In the instant Writ Petitions, the petitioner challenges enhancement of property tax.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited our attention to representation, dated 07.04.2014 and submitted that the Commissioner, as provided for under Section 220 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, ought to have decided this representation. He submits that the petitioner made this representation within less than one week from the date of receipt of demand notice, dated 07.01.2015. We would not like to enter into an issue whether representation was made within a week as claimed by the petitioner. When the attention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 was invited to this representation, he fairly stated that the Commissioner shall decide the same on merits in accordance with law.

¶14

In view thereof, we dispose of these Writ Petitions with the following order:

¶15

“The Commissioner shall decide the petitioner’s representation/complaint dated 07.04.2014 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till the petitioner’s complaint is decided, respondent No.2 or 3 shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner. It is needless to mention that the Commissioner shall communicate his decision to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the decision. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the Commissioner’s order passed on her representation/complaint, if it is adverse to her, in appropriate proceedings.”

¶16

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶17

________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ SEPTEMBER, 2015. _____________ S.V. BHATT, J

¶18

10^th SEPTEMBER, 2015.

¶19

kvni

Smt Shahnaz Begum, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shahnaz Begum, v. The State of Telangana

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

Thummala Surender Reddy Vs The Govt. of A.P

Sandhi Polysters Limited, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

B.Nagappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Onteru Parthasarathi Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. B. Renuka Vs The Government of A.P.

The President, Vs S. Bhoomaiah Goud